[Bug 41066] New: Unhandled page fault in RtlWow64EnableFsRedirectionEx when passed bad *old_value pointer
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41066 Bug ID: 41066 Summary: Unhandled page fault in RtlWow64EnableFsRedirectionEx when passed bad *old_value pointer Product: Wine Version: 1.9.15 Hardware: x86-64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ntdll Assignee: wine-bugs(a)winehq.org Reporter: wine-bugzilla(a)nerdoftheherd.com Distribution: --- If Wine's RtlWow64EnableFsRedirectionEx (when running under WoW64) is passed a bad pointer value that doesn't start with 0x0000, this causes an unhandled page fault instead of returning the value STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION as Windows does. I discovered this behaviour when attempting to install the Dymo LabelWriter software, as for some reason the installer calls Wow64DisableWow64FsRedirection with a pointer value of 0x10000000 instead of a real memory location, which is then passed along to RtlWow64EnableFsRedirectionEx. I have a patch nearly ready to submit to fix this issue, but wanted to raise a bug so that it can be linked to the appdb. -- 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=41066 Matt Robinson <wine-bugzilla(a)nerdoftheherd.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Distribution|--- |Ubuntu -- 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=41066 André H. <nerv(a)dawncrow.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC| |nerv(a)dawncrow.de --- Comment #1 from André H. <nerv(a)dawncrow.de> --- confirming Funny, your patch https://source.winehq.org/patches/data/125193 is somewhat like my first attempt on that issue in 2011: https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2011-December/110003.html :) IIRC we tried to avoid __TRY and then this patch was committed: https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2012-August/117176.html -- 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=41066 --- Comment #2 from Matt Robinson <wine-bugzilla(a)nerdoftheherd.com> --- (In reply to André H. from comment #1)
confirming
Funny, your patch https://source.winehq.org/patches/data/125193 is somewhat like my first attempt on that issue in 2011: https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2011-December/110003.html :)
IIRC we tried to avoid __TRY and then this patch was committed: https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2012-August/117176.html
Wow! I don't think those patches could be much more similar if I'd seen yours before I'd submitted mine... Even down to the use of 0xdeadbeef as the test value! Good to see that great minds think alike although mildly disappointing to realise I could have saved quite a lot of digging around the source with some better Google skills. Do you remember why it was preferred to avoid __TRY when you revised your patch? -- 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=41066 --- Comment #3 from André H. <nerv(a)dawncrow.de> --- (In reply to Matt Robinson from comment #2)
great minds think alike
:)
Do you remember why it was preferred to avoid __TRY when you revised your patch?
I think it seemed overkill back then, but this bug report proves that it is needed IMHO -- 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=41066 Matt Robinson <wine-bugzilla(a)nerdoftheherd.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Matt Robinson <wine-bugzilla(a)nerdoftheherd.com> --- (In reply to André H. from comment #3)
I think it seemed overkill back then, but this bug report proves that it is needed IMHO
Cool, thanks for that feedback and for reviewing the patches, the second revision (https://source.winehq.org/patches/data/125298) has just been committed :-). -- 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=41066 Bruno Jesus <00cpxxx(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed by SHA1| |4a6bd3d2008f6ab4d91fcbeb6c4 | |10099932c97e7 -- 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=41066 Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Comment #5 from Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> --- Closing bugs fixed in 1.9.17. -- 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=41066 Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|--- |1.8.x CC| |mstefani(a)redhat.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=41066 Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|1.8.x |--- --- Comment #6 from Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani(a)redhat.com> --- Removing 1.8.x milestone from bugs included in 1.8.5. -- 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 (1)
-
wine-bugs＠winehq.org