November 2025 - Wine-GitLab

[PATCH v5 0/5] MR9293: Reparse points, part 1.
by Elizabeth Figura (＠zfigura) Nov. 7, 2025

Nov. 7, 2025

As prescribed some time ago, this attempts to implement correct reparse behaviour simply without attempting at all to make reparse points resolvable Unix symlinks. A reparse point consists two files. For a file whose NT name is "foobar", the contents of the file or directory (and note that a reparse point *can* have arbitrary contents) is stored in a file or directory "foobar?". The contents of the reparse point are stored in a file "foobar*". Both * and ? are valid in POSIX filenames but not NT, so no collision should be possible. The actual file "foobar" does not exist in this case. This is to allow the case where there are no reparse points (which is most common) to work as it currently does, without any extra overhead to check for a reparse point. [Simply guarding this behind FILE_OPEN_REPARSE_POINT does not seem good enough to me; that flag is used for example by many builtin functions like MoveFile().] When failing to locate a path segment "foobar", we check for "foobar*" and attempt to parse and resolve that reparse point. Issues: (1) Since we are manipulating two files, are there any race conditions? I believe there are no meaningful races. Read/write races: - When setting a reparse point, we move the contents file out of the way last, so attempts to open the file before that will see a normal file. Attempts to read the reparse point might see a partial file, but we treat that as failure. - When removing a reparse point from a file, we move the contents file back first, so attempts to open or read will see a normal file. - When deleting a reparse point entirely, we delete the contents first, so attempts to open the file will see neither a normal file nor the contents of the symlink, and fail. Attempts to query attributes don't need to open the contents, only the data, which will either be present or not. Write/write races: - Races involving file deletion don't matter, because deletion doesn't take effect until all handles to an inode are closed. - If we try to simultaneously set the reparse point from two different threads, one will fail with no effect since we create the reparse data file with O_EXCL. - If we try to remove the reparse point while setting it, the contents won't be in the right place and we'll fail. - If we try to remove the reparse point from two different threads, one will fail to move the contents back or delete them. (2) How does this interact with hard links? Creating a hard link to an existing reparse point is not too hard to do; we can just hard link both the data file and the contents file. However, turning an existing hardlinked file into a reparse point cannot work. This is also a limitation of other approaches that have been proposed. For this reason I've elected to forbid hard link interaction for now. One alternative approach that would allow turning hardlinked files into reparse points would be to store the reparse data in xattr. This would be less portable though. -- v5: ntdll: Resolve IO_REPARSE_TAG_MOUNT_POINT during path lookup. ntdll: Pass attr and nt_name down to lookup_unix_name(). server: Implement FSCTL_GET_REPARSE_POINT. server: Implement FSCTL_DELETE_REPARSE_POINT. server: Implement FSCTL_SET_REPARSE_POINT. https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/9293

3 9

[PATCH v3 0/2] MR9388: user32/tests: Add some tests for GetWindow(GW_ENABLEDPOPUP).
by Nikolay Sivov (＠nsivov) Nov. 7, 2025

Nov. 7, 2025

Signed-off-by: Nikolay Sivov <nsivov(a)codeweavers.com> -- v3: user32: Implement GetWindow(GW_ENABLEDPOPUP). user32/tests: Add some tests for GetWindow(GW_ENABLEDPOPUP). https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/9388

3 4

[PATCH v2 0/2] MR9390: ntdll: Don't detect epilogue in chained unwind function on x64.
by Paul Gofman (＠gofman) Nov. 7, 2025

Nov. 7, 2025

Fixes a regression introduced by 052722667c9dbf96a5dc04d45af55599718d9f92. -- v2: ntdll: Check for related functions in is_inside_epilog() when detecting tail call. ntdll: Don't detect epilogue in chained unwind function on x64. https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/9390

2 3

[PATCH 0/1] MR9399: dlls/sane.ds: Fix setting resolution in user interface
by Bernd Herd (＠herdsoft) Nov. 7, 2025

Nov. 7, 2025

This is a merge request to solve a problem that became visible by this merge request from Ivan Lyugaev: https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/9184#note_121010 When used with a HP Officejet Pro 8600 N911a, it is no longer possible to choose a scan resolution other than 75 DPI. The reason is that the code always set the "source" option after the "resolution" option, and setting the "source" option resets the resolution on that scanner to 75 DPI, even if it is not changed. Sane services are implemented in hplip. On Debian: ``` apt source hplip sed -n '560,563p' hplip-3.22.10+dfsg0/scan/sane/ledm.c i = session->adf_resolutionList[0] + 1; while(i--) session->resolutionList[i] = session->adf_resolutionList[i]; } ps->currentResolution = session->resolutionList[1]; ``` This new commit changes two things: 1. The order in which parameters are set in sane is changed. A parameter called "source" is set earlier than all other parameters. 2. If a parameter derived from a combobox of named options is not changed, it is not set in sane to the same value again. This seems to solve the problem on the HP Officejet Pro 8600 N911a, but other sane backends might have more dependencies that might still need to be addressed. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/9399

2 1

[PATCH v4 0/3] MR9386: jscript: Implement Uint8ClampedArray.
by Gabriel Ivăncescu Nov. 7, 2025

Nov. 7, 2025

-- v4: jscript: Return JS_E_OBJECT_EXPECTED in valueOf with NULL disps in IE10+ jscript: Expose Uint8ClampedArray only in ES6 mode. jscript: Implement Uint8ClampedArray. https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/9386

2 7

[PATCH v11 0/5] MR9112: XCOPY and COPY should not attempt to copy a file to itself.
by Joe Souza (＠JoeS209) Nov. 7, 2025

Nov. 7, 2025

Current code attempts to copy a file to itself. File is not actually copied; instead, a file sharing error is received. This result is ugly and differs from native. Behavior now appears to be the same as native with changes in this MR . -- v11: xcopy: Don't attempt to copy a file to itself. xcopy/tests: Add test for XCOPY to self. xcopy: Fix leaked resource in an error case. cmd: Don't attempt to copy a file to itself. https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/9112

3 13

[PATCH 0/1] MR9390: ntdll: Don't detect epilogue in chained unwind function on x64.
by Paul Gofman (＠gofman) Nov. 7, 2025

Nov. 7, 2025

Fixes a regression introduced by 052722667c9dbf96a5dc04d45af55599718d9f92. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/9390

2 3

[PATCH v3 0/5] MR9368: dsound: Use AUTOCONVERTPCM when initializing the render audio client.
by Giovanni Mascellani (＠giomasce) Nov. 7, 2025

Nov. 7, 2025

-- v3: dsound: Do not query for supported formats for the primary buffer. dsound: Do not query for mixing format support. dsound: Simplify computing the mixing format. dsound: Always require a floating-point mixing format. dsound: Use AUTOCONVERTPCM when initializing the render audio client. https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/9368

3 7

[PATCH 0/2] MR9396: win32u: Disable vsync when emulating front buffer rendering.
by Rémi Bernon Nov. 7, 2025

Nov. 7, 2025

Wine-Bug: https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58906 -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/9396

1 2

[PATCH 0/4] MR9270: winex11: Prevent larger than monitor window resizes.
by Rémi Bernon Nov. 7, 2025

Nov. 7, 2025

This prevents WMs like KWin or Mutter from automatically maximizing windows which frames are larger than their monitor area. The maximization otherwise gets fed back into the win32 state, and often confuses applications which are operating a fullscreen window change by resizing a window then later changing its decoration. It isn't possible to tell between a maximization initiated by the user and one that is initiated by the WM responding to a window resize from us. This heuristic should hopefully be good enough, as it is unlikely that the user will ever be able to resize a window in a such a way that its *frame* covers a monitor entirely. Note that if the user resizes a window such that its *visible* area covers a monitor entirely, we are going to make it fullscreen already anyway. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/9270

3 8