RE: [Mingw-users] possibly misnamed function declaration in sspi.h

[Andrew S. <ac...@sy...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Fraser [mailto:da...@sj...]
> Sent: April 10, 2003 02:39
> To: Andrew Stadt
> Cc: 'Christopher Seawood'; min...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Mingw-users] possibly misnamed function declaration in
> sspi.h
>
>
> Andrew Stadt wrote:
>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: min...@li...
> >>[mailto:min...@li...]On Behalf Of
> >>Christopher
> >>Seawood
> >>Sent: April 9, 2003 20:21
> >>To: min...@li...
> >>Subject: [Mingw-users] possibly misnamed function declaration
> >>in sspi.h
> >>
> >>
> >>We're still working on landing mingw support for Mozilla and
> >>we have run
> >>into another win32 vs w32api issue.  In the SecurityFunctionTableA &
> >>SecurityFunctionTableW structs in sspi.h, win32 has a
> >>function prototype
> >>named FreeCredentialHandle and w32api uses the name
> >>FreeCredentialsHandle (note the extra s).  Is this difference
> >>intentional?
> >>
> >>- cls
> >>
> >>
> >
> >More Microsoft weirdness?  According to Microsoft's SDK, the
> >SecurityFunctionTable[A|W] is supposed to have a member named
> >"FreeCredentialsHandle".  I don't keep a copy of MS's
> headers on my system,
> >if you have access to those headers, I suggest you take a
> look at both
> >structures to see what they did.
> >
> >I think the simple solution would be to add something like:
> >
> >#define FreeCredentialHandle FreeCredentialsHandle
> >
> >in your own headers.
> >
> >HTH, Andrew.
> >
> >
> I don't think that's going to work ...
> According to the headers with VC++ 6, there's a function
> SECURITY_STATUS SEC_ENTRY FreeCredentialsHandle(PCredHandle
> phCredential);
> outside of the SecurityFunctionTable[A|W], but inside,
> there's a member
>   FREE_CREDENTIALS_HANDLE_FN FreeCredentialHandle;
> So doing a define would confuse things greatly.
>
> Doing Google searches for FreeCredentialsHandle and
> FreeCredentialHandle
> yields more info, including Microsoft documentation confirming this:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/m
aintain/security/sspi2k.asp
I'm pretty sure this was originally a Microsoft type as the other
related functions in the structure have a plural Credentials as well as
the function types, but now that it's in there, it's the definition ...
so I think the w32api headers should change to reflect this...

David

You're probably correct in your assertion.  I would like to examine MS's
headers, but I don't want to contaminate my system.

According to the link you provided above,

typedef struct _SECURITY_FUNCTION_TABLE_W {
.
.
.
// QUERY_CREDENTIALS_ATTRIBUTES_FN_W QueryCredentialsAttributesW;
ACQUIRE_CREDENTIALS_HANDLE_FN_W AcquireCredentialsHandleW;
FREE_CREDENTIALS_HANDLE_FN FreeCredentialHandle;
void SEC_FAR * Reserved2;
.
.
.

yet according to msdn
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/security/s
ecurity/securityfunctiontable.asp),

typedef struct SECURITY_FUNCTION_TABLE {
.
.
.
  QUERY_CREDENTIAL_ATTRIBUTES_FN QueryCredentialsAttributes;
  ACQUIRE_CREDENTIALS_HANDLE_FN AcquireCredentialsHandle;
  FREE_CREDENTIALS_HANDLE_FN FreeCredentialsHandle;
  void SEC_FAR* Reserved2;
.
.
.

So which one do you deem to be more authorative?