http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4436
Summary: Storage32 regression problem: ECAD app 'Easy-PC' is unable to create new project/design Product: Wine Version: CVS Platform: PC-x86-64 OS/Version: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P2 Component: wine-ole AssignedTo: wine-bugs@winehq.org ReportedBy: J.A.Gow@furrybubble.co.uk
I have some regression problems relating to Wine in a commercial ECAD app 'Easy-PC' version 9.0, available from http://www.numberone.com
The application was quite usable on Crossover Office 4.2, with just some minor dialog corruption. Alpha versions of Wine available at the same time (can not exactly remember which ones) could also run it successfully. However, under the latest Wine 0.9.6, Wine CVS and CXO 5.0.1 it does not work. Note that it does not crash, it errors out cleanly with a dialog box message.
I have been debugging the problems in this app for some time now. It is a critical app for me as I use it in a production environment, but I do not want to pay Microsoft for the privilege of exposing my machine to malware. I am thus prepared to help debug Wine to get this application running. However, my Windows programming experience is limited to device drivers, not apps (although fluent C/C++ systems programming on other platforms), I have hit a brick wall, possibly due to my limited knowledge of how the Windows API works and I will need some help with this.
If anyone would like to help me debug this app (hope springs eternal!), a demo version of the app is available free of charge from the web site address above, and this version exhibits the same problems as the full version.
Background -------------
The system: Dual physical processor (not dual core) Opteron running SuSE 10.0 x86_64 SMP. Wine: Latest 0.9.6 release, up to CVS grabbed a week or so ago.
The application installs OK and when run, puts up a GUI as expected. However, when you try to create a new PCB or schematic, an error dialog box is displayed indicating that the app can not read the technology file Default.stf (schematic) or Default.ptf (pcb). This is _not_ a permissions problem, all files are actually present and the same install will work under CXO 4.2.
I generated and analyzed several hundred MB of logfiles over many days, added extra debug statements to the Wine code and analyzed the application's operation. The problem actually appears to have two causes, and this is what I have come up with so far.
Problem 1 -----------
Application calls StgOpenStorage with a grfMode flag of 0x10020 (STGM_TRANSACTED | STGM_SHARE_DENY_WRITE). Immediately afterwards it calls StorageBaseImpl_OpenStream with a grfMode of 0x12 (STGM_SHARE_EXCLUSIVE | STGM_READWRITE). This second call fails with an access denied error code, after which the logs show an easily traced error handling sequence leading to display of the error dialog mentioned above:
0009:Call ole32.StgOpenStorage(59693db0 L"c:\Program Files\Number One Systems\Easy-PC\Technology\Default.ptf",00000000,00010020,00000000,00000000,5821f850) ret=1022e7f0
... ...
trace:storage:StgOpenStorage <-- 00000000, IStorage 0x5b3465f8 0009:Ret ole32.StgOpenStorage() retval=00000000 ret=1022e7f0
... ...
trace:storage:StorageBaseImpl_OpenStream (0x5b3465f8, L"\0005FileType", (nil), 12, 0, 0x5821f848) fixme:storage:StorageBaseImpl_OpenStream STORAGE ACCESS DENIED - parent 0, this 2
Note that the last fixme is one I added to find out exactly what was going on here. Now, logic would dictate that the grfMode of the OpenStream method call is indeed incompatible with that of its parent storage object. However, I would have thought that the application coders would most likely have hard-coded the grfMode flags in the application. If so, it would seem that the app is buggy, yet this application works on Windows! Either the app is buggy and the Win32 OLE32 implementation behaves differently, or I am missing something here.
Ok, so with no obvious solution to this problem, I decided to bypass it. I modified the storage32.c implementation in the following way to bypass the grfMode check:
parent_grfMode = STGM_ACCESS_MODE( This->ancestorStorage->base.openFlags ); *if* ( STGM_ACCESS_MODE( grfMode ) > STGM_ACCESS_MODE( parent_grfMode ) ) {
FIXME("StorageBase_OpenStream called with grfMode mismatch - parent %d, this %d\n", parent_grfMode,STGM_ACCESS_MODE(grfMode));
///res = STG_E_ACCESSDENIED;/ ///goto end;/ }
Obviously not a viable fix, but a hack to get it working. After implementing this, the OpenStream call succeeded, as did subsequent stream access. However, the app _still_ errored out in exactly the same manner and at the same time. After more log searching, this led to the discovery of the second problem.
Problem 2 -----------
During its loading and setup, the application repeatedly calls StgOpenStorage on the .stf/.ptf files in question, calls OpenStream, reads from the stream, and then finally closes the storage. I placed tell-tales in useful locations in the file open/close handlers in the wineserver, and could clearly see the files being opened and subsequently closed. This open/read/close occurs correctly and in sequence up to a certain point. At this point in the execution, the app calls StgOpenStorage on the technology file, with the following call. It is opened correctly, with grfMode of STGM_TRANSACTED | STGM_SHARED_DENY_WRITE | STGM_READWRITE:
0009:Call ole32.StgOpenStorage(5821f754 L"c:\Program Files\Number One Systems\Easy-PC\Technology\Default.ptf",00000000,00010022,00000000,00000000,5821f7f4) ret=7c17eabc trace:storage:StgOpenStorage (L"c:\Program Files\Number One Systems\Easy-PC\Technology\Default.ptf", (nil), 10022, (nil), 0, 0x5821f7f4) ... ... ... trace:storage:StorageBaseImpl_AddRef (0x5b3465f8) AddRef to 1 trace:storage:StgOpenStorage <-- 00000000, IStorage 0x5b3465f8 0009:Ret ole32.StgOpenStorage() retval=00000000 ret=7c17eabc
Almost immediately, the app opens three streams in this object and starts to access them, all successfully. There follows a whole slew of logging statements, all of which appear sensible However, what is strange about this access is that soon we seem to be frantically increasing the storage object's reference pointer. This sequence appears frequently in the code, closely spaced but interspersed with what seems quite logical and successful calls to seek functions and memory allocation functions:
0009:Call ntdll.RtlAllocateHeap(55890000,00000000,00000030) ret=584e498b 0009:Ret ntdll.RtlAllocateHeap() retval=55926480 ret=584e498b trace:storage:StorageBaseImpl_AddRef (0x5b3465f8) AddRef to 9 trace:storage:StorageImpl_ReadProperty storage name: L"\0005SummaryInformation" 0009:Call ntdll.RtlAllocateHeap(55890000,00000000,00000008) ret=584e7ab3 0009:Ret ntdll.RtlAllocateHeap() retval=5594d108 ret=584e7ab3
The storage object's reference pointer is so incremented up to 19:
0009:Call ntdll.RtlAllocateHeap(55890000,00000000,00000030) ret=584e498b 0009:Ret ntdll.RtlAllocateHeap() retval=559250f8 ret=584e498b trace:storage:StorageBaseImpl_AddRef (0x5b3465f8) AddRef to 19 trace:storage:StorageImpl_ReadProperty storage name: L"\0005SummaryInformation" 0009:Call ntdll.RtlAllocateHeap(55890000,00000000,00000008) ret=584e7ab3 0009:Ret ntdll.RtlAllocateHeap() retval=55925130 ret=584e7ab3
Finally, the code executes a
trace:storage:StgStreamImpl_Destroy (0x5b34b7e0) trace:storage:StorageBaseImpl_Release (0x5b3465f8) ReleaseRef to 18
There follows a lot more log file, mostly concerned with set up and so on. What I am highligting here is that between this point, and the point of actual failure which I am going to describe shortly, there appears to be no attempt to close the Default.ptf file, unlike the attempts further up the logs closer to program start. I am wondering about this: is the reference counter being incorrectly incremented here, preventing the 'Release' function from destroying the storage object and thus closing the file? I am not sufficiently familiar with the COM storage object stuff in Windows to know what _should_ happen here. Anyway. I will now describe the point of failure.
Further down the log, there are several more successful opens/closes of the technology file, with the correct mode flags. Then, finally, the app tries to re-open the technology file with a grfMode of STGM_TRANSACTED | STGM_SHARE_DENY_WRITE. This call fails with a sharing violation (remember it had been left open from the previous call)
0009:Call ole32.StgOpenStorage(5971bec8 L"c:\Program Files\Number One Systems\Easy-PC\Technology\Default.stf",00000000,00010020,00000000,00000000,5821e69c) ret=1022e7f0 .... .... 0009:Ret kernel32.CreateFileW() retval=ffffffff ret=584edc8b trace:storage:StgOpenStorage <-- 80030020, IStorage (nil)
There then follows the same error handling sequence leading to display of the dialog.
I then thought about a simple test. I overrode the sharing mode detection in fd.c/check_sharing() in the wineserver (again, not a real solution). Note there are some minor differences in the code - I used a return code so I could easily check it:
/// if ((access & FILE_UNIX_READ_ACCESS) && !(existing_sharing & FILE_SHARE_READ))/ /// rc=0;/ /// if ((access & FILE_UNIX_WRITE_ACCESS) && !(existing_sharing & FILE_SHARE_WRITE))/ /// rc=0;/
/// if ((existing_access & FILE_UNIX_READ_ACCESS) && !(sharing & FILE_SHARE_READ)) rc=0;/ /// if ((existing_access & FILE_UNIX_WRITE_ACCESS) && !(sharing & FILE_SHARE_WRITE)) rc=0;/
*if* (fd->closed->unlink[0] && !(existing_sharing & FILE_SHARE_DELETE)) rc=0; *if* (unlink && !(sharing & FILE_SHARE_DELETE)) rc=0;
*if*(rc==0) { fprintf(stderr,"FILEDESC - sharing mode invalid\n"); rc=1; }
*return* rc;
and the application worked! Not only worked, but worked perfectly! The minor dialog corruption of previous versions had completely gone! I would like to thank the hard working people who have been working to correct problems in Wine, and in doing so had fixed this minor dialog problem. The only issue of note then is that the top-right hand buttons of a maximized MDI child window do not appear until you resize the frame. This is a minor issue though, and not of importance here.
However, what I did does not represent a real solution - I just hacked around the problem, which itself seems subtle in nature. I looked closely at the Microsoft documentation and the logic in check_sharing(), even writing a program in Windows to check that at the CreateFile level that the sharing logic in Wine is correct. It seems to be.
I am now stumped, I would really like to get this app working properly under Wine, without bad hacks. I would appreciate any guidance from those more experienced with the user-land Windows API. If you got this far, many thanks for taking the time to read this long message. I have provided only small excerpts from logs, but I can provide other parts of the files on request if necessary.