[Bug 57711] New: The 32-bit wpcap program has a stack leakage issue

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57711

Bug ID: 57711
           Summary: The 32-bit wpcap program has a stack leakage issue
           Product: Wine
           Version: 10.0-rc5
          Hardware: x86-64
                OS: Linux
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: wpcap
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
      Distribution: ---

Created attachment 77913
  --> https://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=77913
test code

I compiled a 32-bit wpcap application using VS2010, and when running this
program with Wine, it caused a stack overflow. Therefore, I wrote a test
program to print the stack address in the callback function, and I noticed that
the address was gradually decreasing. This issue does not occur with the 64-bit
program. The test program is included in the attachment.

[Bug 57711] The 32-bit wpcap program has a stack leakage issue

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57711

--- Comment #1 from Hans Leidekker  ---
Created attachment 77914
  --> https://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=77914
patch

Can you try this patch?

[Bug 57711] The 32-bit wpcap program has a stack leakage issue

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57711

--- Comment #2 from mushu  ---
(In reply to Hans Leidekker from comment #1)
> Created attachment 77914 [details]
> patch
>
> Can you try this patch?

This patch resolves the issue. Could you explain how this problem came about?
Why do 32-bit and 64-bit programs exhibit different behaviors?

[Bug 57711] The 32-bit wpcap program has a stack leakage issue

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57711

--- Comment #3 from Hans Leidekker  ---
(In reply to mushu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Hans Leidekker from comment #1)
> > Created attachment 77914 [details]
> > patch
> >
> > Can you try this patch?
>
> This patch resolves the issue. Could you explain how this problem came
> about? Why do 32-bit and 64-bit programs exhibit different behaviors?

We used the wrong calling convention (CALLBACK maps to 32-bit only __stdcall).
It's ignored when building 64-bit, that's why it worked there.

[Bug 57711] The 32-bit wpcap program has a stack leakage issue

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57711

--- Comment #4 from mushu  ---
(In reply to Hans Leidekker from comment #3)
> (In reply to mushu from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Hans Leidekker from comment #1)
> > > Created attachment 77914 [details]
> > > patch
> > >
> > > Can you try this patch?
> >
> > This patch resolves the issue. Could you explain how this problem came
> > about? Why do 32-bit and 64-bit programs exhibit different behaviors?
>
> We used the wrong calling convention (CALLBACK maps to 32-bit only
> __stdcall). It's ignored when building 64-bit, that's why it worked there.

I understand the reason for the behavioral differences between x64 and x32:
__stdcall is ignored in ARM and x64 architectures. However, why is __stdcall
considered the wrong calling convention? I noticed that many parts of the Wine
source code use it.

[Bug 57711] The 32-bit wpcap program has a stack leakage issue

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57711

--- Comment #5 from Hans Leidekker  ---
(In reply to mushu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Hans Leidekker from comment #3)
> > (In reply to mushu from comment #2)
> > > (In reply to Hans Leidekker from comment #1)
> > > > Created attachment 77914 [details]
> > > > patch
> > > >
> > > > Can you try this patch?
> > >
> > > This patch resolves the issue. Could you explain how this problem came
> > > about? Why do 32-bit and 64-bit programs exhibit different behaviors?
> >
> > We used the wrong calling convention (CALLBACK maps to 32-bit only
> > __stdcall). It's ignored when building 64-bit, that's why it worked there.
>
> I understand the reason for the behavioral differences between x64 and x32:
> __stdcall is ignored in ARM and x64 architectures. However, why is __stdcall
> considered the wrong calling convention? I noticed that many parts of the
> Wine source code use it.

The callback argument to pcap_loop() (pcap_handler) isn't defined as __stdcall
in pcap.h.

[Bug 57711] The 32-bit wpcap program has a stack leakage issue

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57711

mushu  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED

--- Comment #6 from mushu  ---
(In reply to Hans Leidekker from comment #5)
> (In reply to mushu from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Hans Leidekker from comment #3)
> > > (In reply to mushu from comment #2)
> > > > (In reply to Hans Leidekker from comment #1)
> > > > > Created attachment 77914 [details]
> > > > > patch
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you try this patch?
> > > >
> > > > This patch resolves the issue. Could you explain how this problem came
> > > > about? Why do 32-bit and 64-bit programs exhibit different behaviors?
> > >
> > > We used the wrong calling convention (CALLBACK maps to 32-bit only
> > > __stdcall). It's ignored when building 64-bit, that's why it worked there.
> >
> > I understand the reason for the behavioral differences between x64 and x32:
> > __stdcall is ignored in ARM and x64 architectures. However, why is __stdcall
> > considered the wrong calling convention? I noticed that many parts of the
> > Wine source code use it.
>
> The callback argument to pcap_loop() (pcap_handler) isn't defined as
> __stdcall in pcap.h.

I got it.Thank you.

[Bug 57711] The 32-bit wpcap program has a stack leakage issue

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57711

Hans Leidekker  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
         Resolution|FIXED                       |---
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED

--- Comment #7 from Hans Leidekker  ---
Let's keep this bug open until the fix is in Wine.

[Bug 57711] The 32-bit wpcap program has a stack leakage issue

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57711

Maotong Zhang  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #8 from Maotong Zhang  ---
This CALLBACK maps to 32-bit only __stdcall , For 64 bit, this is indeed a
problem

[Bug 57711] The 32-bit wpcap program has a stack leakage issue

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57711

Hans Leidekker  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Fixed by SHA1|                            |a78be8c5756f0b50f11b5270bf8
                   |                            |f7d6ef35a7e2a
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #9 from Hans Leidekker  ---
Fixed by a78be8c5756f0b50f11b5270bf8f7d6ef35a7e2a. Thanks for the bug report!

[Bug 57711] The 32-bit wpcap program has a stack leakage issue

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57711

Alexandre Julliard  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |CLOSED

--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Julliard  ---
Closing bugs fixed in 10.1.