Re: wininet: Call WSAStartup/WSACleanup to mime the Windows behavior
Hey Bruno,
+static void init_ws2_32(void) +{ + static int once; + if (once++) return; + hws2_32 = GetModuleHandleA("ws2_32.dll"); + pWSAStartup = (void *)GetProcAddress(hws2_32, "WSAStartup"); + pWSACleanup = (void *)GetProcAddress(hws2_32, "WSACleanup"); +} + +static void free_ws2_32(void) +{ + FreeLibrary(hws2_32); +}
GetModuleHandle doesn't increase the reference count so you probably shouldn't call FreeLibrary.
+ /* initialize winsock DLL here as expected by some broken applications */ + if (!winsock_init++) + { + char buffer[128]; + init_ws2_32(); + pWSAStartup(MAKEWORD( 1, 1 ), buffer); + }
I believe Windows initializes with version 2. At least that's what my old test says (line 105): https://code.reactos.org/browse/reactos/trunk/rostests/apitests/wininet/Inte... (free to use under LGPL... I can make it explicit in the source file, or help with getting it in Winetest format if desired) By the way, the same applies to winhttp in case you're interested: https://code.reactos.org/browse/reactos/trunk/rostests/apitests/winhttp/WinH... Thanks! -Thomas
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Thomas Faber <thomas.faber(a)reactos.org> wrote:
Hey Bruno,
+static void init_ws2_32(void) +{ + static int once; + if (once++) return; + hws2_32 = GetModuleHandleA("ws2_32.dll"); + pWSAStartup = (void *)GetProcAddress(hws2_32, "WSAStartup"); + pWSACleanup = (void *)GetProcAddress(hws2_32, "WSACleanup"); +} + +static void free_ws2_32(void) +{ + FreeLibrary(hws2_32); +}
GetModuleHandle doesn't increase the reference count so you probably shouldn't call FreeLibrary.
Thanks, I misread MSDN. It says that only GetModuleHandleEx require the FreeLibrary call.
+ /* initialize winsock DLL here as expected by some broken applications */ + if (!winsock_init++) + { + char buffer[128]; + init_ws2_32(); + pWSAStartup(MAKEWORD( 1, 1 ), buffer); + }
I believe Windows initializes with version 2. At least that's what my old test says (line 105):
I based the call in the relay log from native wininet: 0024:Call ws2_32.WSAStartup(00000101,0033e378) ret=76c16d16
https://code.reactos.org/browse/reactos/trunk/rostests/apitests/wininet/Inte... (free to use under LGPL... I can make it explicit in the source file, or help with getting it in Winetest format if desired)
By the way, the same applies to winhttp in case you're interested: https://code.reactos.org/browse/reactos/trunk/rostests/apitests/winhttp/WinH...
Ok, thanks for the information.
Thanks! -Thomas
Thanks again, Bruno
Bruno Jesus <00cpxxx(a)gmail.com> writes:
I believe Windows initializes with version 2. At least that's what my old test says (line 105):
I based the call in the relay log from native wininet: 0024:Call ws2_32.WSAStartup(00000101,0033e378) ret=76c16d16
This is not allowed, you can't look at the internal behavior of native wininet. Now I can't accept your patch. You should have done this through test cases only. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
Bruno Jesus <00cpxxx(a)gmail.com> writes:
I believe Windows initializes with version 2. At least that's what my old test says (line 105):
I based the call in the relay log from native wininet: 0024:Call ws2_32.WSAStartup(00000101,0033e378) ret=76c16d16
This is not allowed, you can't look at the internal behavior of native wininet. Now I can't accept your patch. You should have done this through test cases only.
Technically he didn't. As he said in the original email, Anastasius Focht is the one who looked at the wininet behavior and described it others ( https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36830#c0). Sounds to me like the old Compaq system of having one person look at what the original does while having another person implement it from their notes. Best, Erich
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Erich E. Hoover <erich.e.hoover(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As he said in the original email, Anastasius Focht is the one who looked at the wininet behavior and described it others (https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36830#c0). Sounds to me like the old Compaq system of having one person look at what the original does while having another person implement it from their notes.
The point of this system is to isolate the implementer from the implementation details of the original, so they can't copy those details. They are supposed to only be given an interface to implement, which they may do differently (if that's possible while still implementing the required interface). It doesn't work if the implementer is told the implementation details, so when doing this you have to be careful about the information you give. I can't explain why the relay call out from wininet to winsock is too much information in this case, but it's been a general policy that we don't look at the calls native makes. (I also learned that policy the hard way, unfortunately.)
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Vincent Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
... The point of this system is to isolate the implementer from the implementation details of the original, so they can't copy those details. They are supposed to only be given an interface to implement, which they may do differently (if that's possible while still implementing the required interface). It doesn't work if the implementer is told the implementation details, so when doing this you have to be careful about the information you give.
Yeah, I'm aware - I was actually surprised to find (after some Googling as a result of this discussion) that the 9th circuit ruled in favor of explicit copying in a case back in 2000 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment,_Inc._v._Connectix_... ). It was my understanding that US law (and case law) didn't have any precedent for permitting something like that. Anyway, it's probably still a good idea to stick to strict clean room techniques.
I can't explain why the relay call out from wininet to winsock is too much information in this case, but it's been a general policy that we don't look at the calls native makes. (I also learned that policy the hard way, unfortunately.)
Maybe we should update http://wiki.winehq.org/CleanRoomGuidelines and make it more prominent on http://www.winehq.org/devel/ ? I don't even know how to get to it from that page, and it seems like a pretty important document... Best, Erich
First section on http://wiki.winehq.org/SubmittingPatches ;) <http://wiki.winehq.org/SubmittingPatches>
Maybe we should update http://wiki.winehq.org/CleanRoomGuidelines and make it more prominent on http://www.winehq.org/devel/ ? I don't even know how to get to it from that page, and it seems like a pretty important document...
Best, Erich
On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Joris van der Wel <joris(a)jorisvanderwel.com> wrote:
First section on http://wiki.winehq.org/SubmittingPatches ;)
Ah, so it is - clearly everyone's not seeing it though ;) Best, Erich
participants (6)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Bruno Jesus -
Erich E. Hoover -
Joris van der Wel -
Thomas Faber -
Vincent Povirk