[Bug 45667] New: League of Legends 8.15+ fails due to missing implementation of NtQueryVirtualMemory (MemoryWorkingSetExInformation)
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 Bug ID: 45667 Summary: League of Legends 8.15+ fails due to missing implementation of NtQueryVirtualMemory(MemoryWorkingSetExInformation) Product: Wine Version: unspecified Hardware: x86 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: -unknown Assignee: wine-bugs(a)winehq.org Reporter: awesie(a)gmail.com Distribution: --- Created attachment 62094 --> https://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=62094 stub implementation NtQueryVirtualMemory(MemoryWorkingSetExInformation) is used by League of Legends on Vista+. The current staging implementation is a stub that returns an error, which is insufficient. Not an issue if Wine is running as Windows XP / 2003. The attached patch adds a stub implementation for MemoryWorkingSetExInformation that marks every passed in address as invalid. This appears to be sufficient for the stub, but is obviously not correct. I am not sure how to implement MemoryWorkingSetExInformation perfectly and efficiently, because it requires knowing whether a page has ever been accessed or not. I don't believe that Linux provides this information, so we would probably need to mark _all_ pages as NOACCESS, handle the fault when accessed, and mark the page as accessed. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 Fabian Maurer <dark.shadow4(a)web.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dark.shadow4(a)web.de -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 jaapbuurman(a)gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jaapbuurman(a)gmail.com -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 zzzzzyzz(a)hacari.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zzzzzyzz(a)hacari.org -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 Zhiyi Zhang <zzhang(a)codeweavers.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zzhang(a)codeweavers.com Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Zhiyi Zhang <zzhang(a)codeweavers.com> --- Confirmed -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 Léo El Amri <leo(a)superlel.me> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |leo(a)superlel.me -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 --- Comment #2 from Léo El Amri <leo(a)superlel.me> --- (In reply to Andrew Wesie from comment #0)
I am not sure how to implement MemoryWorkingSetExInformation perfectly and efficiently, because it requires knowing whether a page has ever been accessed or not.
Hello, I'm new here, I'm far from being a pro at Windows internals, and I'm not very informed on API/ABI regarding memory info on Linux, but I don't understand why we have to know if a page has ever been accessed or not. Given the MSDN documentation, the information returned by NtQueryVirtualMemory are nearly the same than what we can get from /proc/*/mem. Am I wrong ? -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 Michele Renosto <composizion3(a)hotmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |composizion3(a)hotmail.com -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 Zebediah Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |STAGED Component|-unknown |ntdll Staged patchset| |https://github.com/wine-sta | |ging/wine-staging/tree/mast | |er/patches/ntdll-MemoryWork | |ingSetExInformation CC| |z.figura12(a)gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Zebediah Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com> --- I don't know how I missed this, but this is in Staging now. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Wesie <awesie(a)gmail.com> --- The stub implementation has a typo: info->VirtualAttributes.Valid in dlls/ntdll/virtual.c should be p->VirtualAttributes.Valid. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Wesie <awesie(a)gmail.com> --- Created attachment 64496 --> https://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=64496 fix typo in stub -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 David Mudrák <david(a)mudrak.name> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |david(a)mudrak.name --- Comment #6 from David Mudrák <david(a)mudrak.name> --- +1 to have the second "fix typo in stub" patch accepted in wine-staging too, given that the first one is already there. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 Manuel <mail+wine(a)m-reimer.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mail+wine(a)m-reimer.de --- Comment #7 from Manuel <mail+wine(a)m-reimer.de> --- What would be the correct way to get the last fix ("fiy typo in stub") onto the radar of people who maintain wine-staging? The first patch ("stub implementation") is already in wine-staging but the fix for this patch is not. Can someone change the status of this bug, so it is visible that not all relevant patches in this bug report are staged? Or should I create a new bug report to separate the new patch from this (already staged) bug? -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 --- Comment #8 from Zebediah Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com> --- Typo fix is pushed now. Don't know how I missed that one either. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 aguertin+wine(a)aguertin.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |48665 -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 Gijs Vermeulen <gijsvrm(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|STAGED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Fixed by SHA1| |64d70b103d65198614973e38422 | |aec210db92360 --- Comment #9 from Gijs Vermeulen <gijsvrm(a)gmail.com> --- A modified version of the staging patch was upstreamed in <https://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commit/64d70b103d65198614973e38422aec210db92360>. Marking FIXED. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 Anastasius Focht <focht(a)gmx.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|unspecified |3.14 Keywords| |obfuscation CC| |focht(a)gmx.net -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45667 Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Comment #10 from Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> --- Closing bugs fixed in 5.11. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
participants (2)
-
wine-bugs＠winehq.org -
WineHQ Bugzilla