diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | source3/rpc_server/srv_spoolss_nt.c | 21 |
1 files changed, 20 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/source3/rpc_server/srv_spoolss_nt.c b/source3/rpc_server/srv_spoolss_nt.c index 8e5c48271b..99ead42ffd 100644 --- a/source3/rpc_server/srv_spoolss_nt.c +++ b/source3/rpc_server/srv_spoolss_nt.c @@ -4525,7 +4525,25 @@ uint32 _spoolss_enumprinterdata(POLICY_HND *handle, uint32 idx, */ if ( (in_value_len==0) && (in_data_len==0) ) { DEBUGADD(6,("Activating NT mega-hack to find sizes\n")); - + + /* + * NT can ask for a specific parameter size - we need to return NO_MORE_ITEMS + * if this parameter size doesn't exist. + * Ok - my opinion here is that the client is not asking for the greatest + * possible size of all the parameters, but is asking specifically for the size needed + * for this specific parameter. In that case we can remove the loop below and + * simplify this lookup code considerably. JF - comments welcome. JRA. + */ + + if (!get_specific_param_by_index(*printer, 2, idx, value, &data, &type, &data_len)) { + safe_free(data); + free_a_printer(&printer, 2); + return ERROR_NO_MORE_ITEMS; + } + + safe_free(data); + data = NULL; + param_index=0; biggest_valuesize=0; biggest_datasize=0; @@ -4537,6 +4555,7 @@ uint32 _spoolss_enumprinterdata(POLICY_HND *handle, uint32 idx, DEBUG(6,("current values: [%d], [%d]\n", biggest_valuesize, biggest_datasize)); safe_free(data); + data = NULL; param_index++; } |