Re: [PATCH] ntoskrnl.exe: add KeBugCheck/KeBugCheckEx stubs

[Michael Müller]

Am 03.04.2017 um 20:25 schrieb Austin English:
> Mentioned in https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42744 and
> https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42746.

Does it really make sense to add such a stub? Windows is supposed to
show a BSOD when you call the function and I guess it is not supposed to
return back to the caller. I would either leave it as a stub or at least
unload the driver / terminate the process with an error.

[PATCH] ntoskrnl.exe: add KeBugCheck/KeBugCheckEx stubs

[Austin English]

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Michael Müller <michael(a)fds-team.de> wrote:
> Am 03.04.2017 um 20:25 schrieb Austin English:
> > Mentioned in https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42744 and
> > https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42746.
>
> Does it really make sense to add such a stub? Windows is supposed to
> show a BSOD when you call the function and I guess it is not supposed to
> return back to the caller. I would either leave it as a stub or at least
> unload the driver / terminate the process with an error.

I see few reports of it, so it's hard to know what the app really
needs. Anyway, I think it's better to handle it in some way than to
crash on an unimplemented function, even if it's a stub.

I don't think Wine needs to implement a BSOD. At least not until 2018/04/01 ;)

-- 
-Austin
GPG: 14FB D7EA A041 937B