http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Summary: err:dosmem:setup_dos_mem error report on every run of Wine Product: Wine Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: -unknown AssignedTo: wine-bugs@winehq.org ReportedBy: michael@araneidae.co.uk
Every run of wine on my system (including wineprefixcreate on a freshly created prefix directory) produces the following messages several times:
preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00000000-60000000 err:dosmem:setup_dos_mem Cannot use first megabyte for DOS address space, please report
As the message requests, I am reporting it.
This is running Ubuntu Hardy Heron beta with wine version 0.9.59, or as it reports it:
$ wine --version preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00000000-60000000 wine-0.9.59 $
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Hans Leidekker hans@it.vu.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hans@it.vu.nl
--- Comment #1 from Hans Leidekker hans@it.vu.nl 2008-04-12 09:07:17 --- I'm seeing the same thing on recent Fedora kernels. This command works around the problem:
$ sudo sysctl -w vm.mmap_min_addr=0
To make this setting permanent, add this line to /etc/sysctl.conf:
vm.mmap_min_addr=0
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #2 from Michael Abbott michael@araneidae.co.uk 2008-04-12 10:31:16 ---
$ sudo sysctl -w vm.mmap_min_addr=0
To make this setting permanent, add this line to /etc/sysctl.conf: vm.mmap_min_addr=0
That's very helpful. I think this page http://www.linuxinsight.com/proc_sys_vm_mmap_min_addr.html explains the logic of this setting and probably why it's changed recently.
Of course, this means that the message from Wine needs to change. Presumably if it's really a problem then it actually needs to be fixed by the user (or the wine install? ... probably a bad idea).
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #3 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2008-04-12 22:58:49 --- (In reply to comment #2)
$ sudo sysctl -w vm.mmap_min_addr=0
To make this setting permanent, add this line to /etc/sysctl.conf: vm.mmap_min_addr=0
That's very helpful. I think this page http://www.linuxinsight.com/proc_sys_vm_mmap_min_addr.html explains the logic of this setting and probably why it's changed recently.
Of course, this means that the message from Wine needs to change. Presumably if it's really a problem then it actually needs to be fixed by the user (or the wine install? ... probably a bad idea).
I sent a patch to wine-patches: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-April/053264.html
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #4 from Michael Abbott michael@araneidae.co.uk 2008-04-13 02:19:02 ---
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-April/053264.html
The problem with the message in this patch is that it doesn't give the user much help: the key is of course to look in /proc/sys/vm/mmap_min_addr -- I mean, what is the poor user who doesn't already know the answer to do?
I'd suggest changing the text "edit /etc/sysctl.conf" to the more helpful "add the line vm.mmap_min_addr=0 to /etc/sysctl.conf".
Any chance of somebody marking this as CONFIRMED?!
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-04-13 05:51:02 --- Confirming.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dank@kegel.com
--- Comment #6 from Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com 2008-04-13 09:44:57 --- *** Bug 12548 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #7 from Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com 2008-04-13 16:23:34 --- For completeness, here's the summary I wrote in the dup bug:
The problem http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2008-0600 prompted distributions to raise the default for /proc/sys/vm/mmap_min_addr or even DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR to 64K from 0. This causes the following error message when starting (some?) wine apps: Problem with wine preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00000000-60000000 See discussion: https://launchpad.net/bugs/114025 http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Patching_CVE-2008-0600_Local_Root_Exploit http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/2.4.36_Stable_Release
You can check to see if you're on an affected system by doing "cat /proc/sys/vm/mmap_min". If that succeeds, and its value is nonzero, you're probably running into this.
To work around the problem temporarily, you can change this value with the command sudo sysctl -w vm.mmap_min_addr=0 but that value gets reset at boot. To work around the problem more persistantly, also edit the file /etc/sysctl.conf like this:
# protect bottom 64k of memory from mmap to prevent NULL-dereference # attacks against potential future kernel security vulnerabilities. # (Added in kernel 2.6.23.) -vm.mmap_min_addr = 65536 +vm.mmap_min_addr = 0
http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/2.4.36_Stable_Release suggests using a value of 4096 for this. "Advanced Windows", 3rd edition, says that the memory area 0 to 4095 is not mapped anyway in windows (it's a guard page). So maybe when Wine is installed, we could somehow change that value to 4096, and have Wine's preloader happily continue if it can't map the bottom page of RAM.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #8 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2008-04-14 22:12:04 --- Alexandre committed a fix today, which makes some progress:
preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00000000-00010000
http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commitdiff;h=f02ef19fdbf5d7396f7143... http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commitdiff;h=195ca1e85f01ac40695fbb... http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commitdiff;h=16e8633ee597c68336bc1b...
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |12592
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
variant mrintegrity@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mrintegrity@gmail.com
--- Comment #9 from variant mrintegrity@gmail.com 2008-04-16 08:51:43 --- Hi,
You can check to see if you're on an affected system by doing "cat /proc/sys/vm/mmap_min". If that succeeds, and its value is nonzero, you're probably running into this.
I think you mean "cat /proc/sys/vm/mmap_min_addr" as vm/mmap_min will never exist :P
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jens@porup.com
--- Comment #10 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-04-18 20:37:11 --- *** Bug 12645 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |groogyboy@msn.com
--- Comment #11 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2008-04-22 23:42:42 --- *** Bug 12746 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #12 from Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com 2008-04-25 09:16:34 --- The URL to send users to for explanations about this is http://wiki.winehq.org/PreloaderPageZeroProblem
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Lei Zhang thestig@google.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |randy.a.ross@gmail.com
--- Comment #13 from Lei Zhang thestig@google.com 2008-04-25 15:29:12 --- *** Bug 12797 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |thomas@tgohome.com
--- Comment #14 from Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com 2008-04-26 22:43:20 --- *** Bug 12815 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gui.simon@gmail.com
--- Comment #15 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-04-29 00:55:14 --- *** Bug 12847 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
James Gregory jgxenite@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jgxenite@gmail.com
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |terryphillips@radical.org.uk
--- Comment #16 from Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org 2008-04-30 11:12:26 --- *** Bug 12867 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Korn wine@temporaryforwarding.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wine@temporaryforwarding.com
--- Comment #17 from Korn wine@temporaryforwarding.com 2008-05-04 10:59:56 --- Will there be a fix for this in wine?
I do not like the option to open "potential future kernel security vulnerabilities".
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #18 from Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com 2008-05-04 11:46:49 --- It's possible we could avoid mapping the very lowest page (I've read Windows does this); that would make the workaround be a little less insecure.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #19 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-05-04 21:52:02 --- (In reply to comment #17)
Will there be a fix for this in wine?
The fix is already in Wine since version 0.9.60.
I do not like the option to open "potential future kernel security vulnerabilities".
In the most cases there is no potential security problems, there are speculations about them. In this case not mapping a zero page can potentially increase security for 0.001% applications, which are so buggy, that nobody would use them anyway.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #20 from Korn wine@temporaryforwarding.com 2008-05-05 02:11:48 --- (In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #17)
Will there be a fix for this in wine?
The fix is already in Wine since version 0.9.60.
I use version 0.9.61 on Ubuntu 8.04 and still run into the error: preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00000000-00010000
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #22 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-05-05 03:31:13 --- (In reply to comment #20)
I use version 0.9.61 on Ubuntu 8.04 and still run into the error: preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00000000-00010000
That's not an error, just a warning.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #23 from James Gregory jgxenite@gmail.com 2008-05-05 03:34:40 --- For a warning, it seems pretty fatal to me when I tried to run Tomb Raider Legend and Tomb Raider Anniversary.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pdluke@freenet.de
--- Comment #24 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-05-05 03:46:46 --- *** Bug 8534 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #25 from Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com 2008-05-05 08:54:49 --- If you can build from source, try building current git; http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-cvs/2008-May/043321.html might help.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bammzilla@gabriana.com
--- Comment #26 from Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org 2008-05-07 07:49:03 --- *** Bug 13041 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ryan@ryantm.com
--- Comment #27 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-05-07 09:11:31 --- *** Bug 13043 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Vitaliy Margolen vitaliy@kievinfo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mccue@caltech.edu
--- Comment #28 from Vitaliy Margolen vitaliy@kievinfo.com 2008-05-10 22:01:08 --- *** Bug 13123 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Ilya Chernykh neptunia@mail.ru changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |neptunia@mail.ru
--- Comment #29 from Ilya Chernykh neptunia@mail.ru 2008-05-18 08:11:47 --- The workaround does not work in FC9.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
mback mback@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mback@yahoo.com
--- Comment #30 from mback mback@yahoo.com 2008-05-18 21:17:02 --- $ wine --version preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00000000-60000000 wine-0.9.59 $
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #31 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-05-18 21:23:09 --- (In reply to comment #30)
$ wine --version preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00000000-60000000 wine-0.9.59
Your Wine version is too old, current release is rc1. If you would carefully read the comments in this bug I'd notice that.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #32 from Ilya Chernykh neptunia@mail.ru 2008-05-18 21:31:05 --- Where to get Wine newer than 0.9.58 for Fedora Core 9 or newer than 0.9.59 for Ubuntu 7.10?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #33 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-05-18 22:27:54 --- (In reply to comment #32)
Where to get Wine newer than 0.9.58 for Fedora Core 9 or newer than 0.9.59 for Ubuntu 7.10?
Ask that question on the support list of your distribution.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rigper@gmail.com
--- Comment #34 from Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org 2008-05-27 03:57:27 --- *** Bug 13454 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jaysonsantos2003@yahoo.com.b | |r
--- Comment #35 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-05-27 05:53:45 --- *** Bug 13444 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |uwe.koch@opticakoch.cl
--- Comment #36 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2008-06-03 18:18:54 --- *** Bug 13668 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
shakaran shakaran@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |shakaran@gmail.com
--- Comment #37 from shakaran shakaran@gmail.com 2008-06-03 19:53:21 --- In rc1, rc2 and rc3 I have not seen this problem in ubuntu 8.04. I think that this solved.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #38 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2008-06-03 20:01:14 --- (In reply to comment #37)
In rc1, rc2 and rc3 I have not seen this problem in ubuntu 8.04. I think that this solved.
Fixes have been put in for most apps, but some dos/win16 apps still trigger it.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Kevin DeKorte kdekorte@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kdekorte@yahoo.com
--- Comment #39 from Kevin DeKorte kdekorte@yahoo.com 2008-06-08 08:59:15 --- The problem now affects wine on Fedora 8. And picasa 2.7.3736-15 triggers the warning message. The work around for mmap_min_addr does work. Just annoying to have wine working correctly and then to have it break.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #40 from Ilya Chernykh neptunia@mail.ru 2008-06-08 09:40:48 --- Civilization I for Windows hangs on startup.
The game shows splash screen and plays intro music, but does not react on mouse clicks (normally mouse click should skip intro). After music is over, the game simply stucks with its splash screen window still displayed. In console it displays an error message: wine: Unhandled page fault on read access to 0x0000000c at address 0x605ad6ae (thread 0019), starting debugger... Unhandled exception: page fault on read access to 0x0000000c in 32-bit code (0x605ad6ae).
The game ran well under Wine 1.0-rc1 after the mmap_min_addr workaround (although with some minor bugs) on the same system, so this bug is either because of post-rc1 changes or because of Fedora 9 post-release updates (regression testing did not help, the bug was present in all test attempts). Under Ubuntu 8.04 with Wine 1.0-rc4 also works well.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
krasmussen@gmail.com krasmussen@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |krasmussen@gmail.com
--- Comment #41 from krasmussen@gmail.com 2008-06-11 09:28:05 --- I've applied the vm.mmap_min_addr fix, but after the update my dictionary (Gyldendals Danish-English) now crashes with this - I'm guessing its related to this bug (full log attached):
wine: Unhandled page fault on read access to 0xffffffff at address 0x12cf:0x0000143c (thread 0031), starting debugger... Unhandled exception: page fault on read access to 0xffffffff in 16-bit code (12cf:143c).
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #42 from Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com 2008-06-11 10:18:19 --- Nah, that looks like a different problem, please create a new bug for it.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |danebigh@aol.com
--- Comment #43 from Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org 2008-07-10 03:25:19 --- *** Bug 14396 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #44 from Brian Walker fdwalkhome@hotmail.com 2008-07-10 11:08:33 --- Re: Comment #373 and #38:
I did encounter this error in Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy, running any command thusfar.
Comment #1 seems to resolve: $ sudo sysctl -w vm.mmap_min_addr=0 To make this setting permanent, add this line to /etc/sysctl.conf: vm.mmap_min_addr
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Scott Ritchie scott@open-vote.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |scott@open-vote.org
--- Comment #45 from Scott Ritchie scott@open-vote.org 2008-08-08 07:52:11 --- Distro packagers should have a new way to workaround this problem if their system is using the newest procps.
You can place your own custom file to override /etc/sysctl.conf settings in /etc/sysctl.d/
So, here we put a small file containing: vm.mmap_min_addr = 0
The problem, however, is that this exposes a bug in sysctl - namely, it loads the /etc/sysctl.d/ folder BEFORE /etc/sysctl.conf, making the new folder useless. Hopefully this will be fixed soon: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/procps/+bug/256025
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Jeremiah Flerchinger flerchjj@ieee.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |flerchjj@ieee.org
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #46 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2008-10-06 16:56:39 --- What's the current status of this bug? Haven't heard much about it lately...
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #47 from Jeremiah Flerchinger flerchjj@ieee.org 2008-10-06 21:45:21 --- I don't experience this error with every run of Wine (nor have I ever). Still I encountered the "Preloader Page Zero Problem" on some apps. The issue may relate to DOS, Win3.1, or Win98 apps that try to access VGA directly.
I am using Ubuntu 8.04 and running "sudo sysctl -w vm.mmap_min_addr=0" still corrects the issue after any restart.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #48 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-10-06 21:49:59 --- (In reply to comment #47)
I don't experience this error with every run of Wine (nor have I ever). Still I encountered the "Preloader Page Zero Problem" on some apps. The issue may relate to DOS, Win3.1, or Win98 apps that try to access VGA directly.
And Wine can do nothing about this.
I am using Ubuntu 8.04 and running "sudo sysctl -w vm.mmap_min_addr=0" still corrects the issue after any restart.
That's the only way to fix it, in order to avoid doing this after a restart follow the suggestion in the comments above.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #49 from Jeremiah Flerchinger flerchjj@ieee.org 2008-10-06 22:13:31 ---
And Wine can do nothing about this.
I didn't say Wine could or should. I was just replying to Austin that the condition still exists.
It is not a big concern of mine, just a minor annoyance and possibly a concern for individuals unaware of the issue or how to work around it.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #50 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2009-04-17 12:13:00 --- This doesn't show up too much anymore, and for the few times it's needed, it's not a Wine bug. Marking invalid.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED
--- Comment #50 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2009-04-17 12:13:00 --- This doesn't show up too much anymore, and for the few times it's needed, it's not a Wine bug. Marking invalid.
--- Comment #51 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2009-04-17 14:30:42 --- Closing.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED
--- Comment #50 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2009-04-17 12:13:00 --- This doesn't show up too much anymore, and for the few times it's needed, it's not a Wine bug. Marking invalid.
--- Comment #51 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2009-04-17 14:30:42 --- Closing.
--- Comment #52 from Scott Ritchie scott@open-vote.org 2009-04-17 14:52:09 --- Wouldn't Wine, in an ideal world, be able to run these applications even with the memory restrictions? I could be wrong, but I thought Dosbox manages to do it somehow.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Vincent Povirk madewokherd@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |madewokherd@gmail.com
--- Comment #53 from Vincent Povirk madewokherd@gmail.com 2009-04-17 16:21:28 --- (In reply to comment #52)
Wouldn't Wine, in an ideal world, be able to run these applications even with the memory restrictions? I could be wrong, but I thought Dosbox manages to do it somehow.
DOSBox does CPU emulation so its own memory layout isn't essential.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Vincent Povirk madewokherd@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |madewokherd@gmail.com
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wouter.j@zonnet.nl
--- Comment #53 from Vincent Povirk madewokherd@gmail.com 2009-04-17 16:21:28 --- (In reply to comment #52)
Wouldn't Wine, in an ideal world, be able to run these applications even with the memory restrictions? I could be wrong, but I thought Dosbox manages to do it somehow.
DOSBox does CPU emulation so its own memory layout isn't essential.
--- Comment #54 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2009-11-30 12:13:20 --- *** Bug 20880 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|unspecified |0.9.59.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Robert Wm Ruedisueli esd45@earthlink.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |esd45@earthlink.net
--- Comment #55 from Robert Wm Ruedisueli esd45@earthlink.net 2010-07-12 10:22:30 --- This technically is a bug in wine, now that wine includes kernel API emulation.
This is actually part of a much larger limitation of not being able to access underlying hardware functions.
Obviously going full emulation would not be an option.
However, the better options would be to utilize a modified variant of Xen to handle the remapping of memory, IO and processor functions to the state and location of a standard win32 system.
Both the APIC and the Virtualization extensions can do this very efficiently, and it's not like we would be remapping standard program memory, or even emulating all the hardware.
No matter what the solution is remapping-based emulation of these functions is the ideal solution.
This would provide a lot of added features for hardware-reliant programs including the ability to secure device access for programs
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #56 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2010-07-12 10:40:32 --- (In reply to comment #55)
This technically is a bug in wine, now that wine includes kernel API emulation.
Wine does not include the kernel API emulation, why do you think it does?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #57 from Robert Wm Ruedisueli esd45@earthlink.net 2010-07-12 19:12:12 --- I should clarify that, I should say that now there is implementation of some essential kernel API functions.
Emulating the full kernel API would be a ridiculous waist of time, especially since a huge portion of it is completely hidden from programs. Clearly kernel emulation is far from the way to describe it.
However, come to think of it a full fix for the cause of this bug, as I described, enable doing a bug for bug memory map replication, something that would be classified as an enhancement.
It would allow for more efficient handling of Direct X, and better isolation of platform specific code relating to Host OS kernel memory mapping.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|err:dosmem:setup_dos_mem |err:dosmem:setup_dos_mem |error report on every run |error report on every run |of Wine |(not a Wine bug)
--- Comment #58 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2010-07-13 00:54:53 --- This bug is about running DOS applications which is impossible without an ability to access page 0. I have no idea why you think this somehow may improve DirectX or anything else.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #59 from Robert Wm Ruedisueli esd45@earthlink.net 2010-07-14 18:56:30 --- What I meant to say was not this limitation was interfering with Direct X performance, but the larger limitation it is symptomatic of.
Basically Wine's entire memory mapping and memory access capabilities on all modes is entirely limited by the Host OS.
While this is fine for now, it will not be good in the long term, as this limitation puts Wine at the mercy of the host OS when choosing how programs see memory, and what shared memory methods are used.
While this is all fine if the host OS is providing optimal methods for doing things. Wine should create a universal means to direct the OS on how to handle memory remapping for Wine, and a variety of transparent fall-backs for when the Host OS is incapable of doing what is necessary to properly match bug for bug Win32 specifications. Without this, bug for bug matching of the memory mapping of all access modes used by drivers and programs will be literally impossible.
Basically, I'm saying it's better to stomp one big bug, than stomp out all it's children. We have the first small bug here that is symptomatic of a much larger limitation. Making plans to defeat that limitation in the long run, could save us hassles down the road, and greatly improve performance.
As of how this relates to Direct X. The current Direct X drivers are greatly limited by Wine's shared memory access. By improving the memory mapping methods used in all segments of Wine, we can pave the way for improvements in that department. It's basically that some of the limitations on how Direct X is implemented are limited by memory mapping capabilities as well. Just like this bug is caused by those same limitations, even if the limitation is impacting a completely different subsection.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #60 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2010-07-14 23:46:51 --- It appears to me that you have no idea what you are talking about, just like you don't know where the message in the summary of this bug is printed and why. Please stop confusing yourself and others.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #61 from Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com 2010-07-14 23:48:59 --- Agreed... Robert, you seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, or prematurely optimizing, or something. Please pick some more measurable problem to work on.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12516
--- Comment #62 from Robert Wm Ruedisueli esd45@earthlink.net 2010-07-17 23:19:08 --- You are probably right, since we don't know the nature of other limitations we will encounter in memory access.
The first bug one may not represent the nature of future ones, so making a universal preemptive fix for this and all future related issues may not be worth the effort if it doesn't necessarily prevent future bugs, or even lay groundwork for fixing them. Until we see a pattern in Host OS limitation bugs, we won't know what would be effective other than workarounds