July 2023 - wine-gitlab

[PATCH 0/1] MR3427: winegstreamer: Avoid releasing wg_allocator memory samples twice.
by Rémi Bernon (＠rbernon) 27 Jul '23

27 Jul '23

When the sample size is too small, we were releasing it from the memory, but kept the next_sample pointer set. Later, when the transform removes the sample from the allocator, its refcount was decremented one more time, effectively leaking the sample. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3427

3 2

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] MR3423: Iphlpapi: Implement NotifyAddrChange (part 1 of 2)
by Paul Gofman (＠gofman) 27 Jul '23

27 Jul '23

On Thu Jul 27 20:38:34 2023 +0000, Zebediah Figura wrote: > > Beyond the test included in the patches, I did roughly the following: > ptr = VirtualAlloc(NULL 4096 \* 2, PAGE_NOACCESS); VirtualProtect(ptr, > 4096, PAGE_READWRITE); params = ptr + 4096 - sizeof(\*params). And used > that pointer. So far it doesn't access it beyond the end of accessible > memory (that succeeds). > Ah yes, that definitely sounds convincing to me :-) > > It might happen that with some other values for unknown parameter it > is using more data from the structure, but IMO exploring more details > about those parameters, in the absence of any known app which uses those > functions, looks like a waste of time to me. It is relatively easy here > with nsi and was already explored for other functions so I didn't want > to break this tradition in nsi, but in general it seems impractical to > me to spend huge amount of time reversing the exact parameters of the > undocumented functions which nothing is using directly. Not feasible for > implementing larger APIs and the benefit is not obvious. And once > something is using directly in a way we don't support we can rather > easily look how and test with those parameters. > Sure. I don't think we necessarily need to figure out the unknown > parameter, or spend too much effort on reverse-engineering undocumented > things in general, or closely matching undocumented APIs. > I only get nervous about the prospect of implementing undocumented APIs > that are incorrect in ways that would be subtle or hard to debug—wrong > number of parameters, wrong struct sizes, and so on. To a degree, the > fact that an application even uses such APIs means that it's a first > place to look when debugging, but that's not exactly the kind of thing > that's trivial to notice. > > I could possibly add a fixme for nonzero unk parameter? > That sounds like a unilaterally good idea to me, at least. Now when this patchset is split in two this first part has only a stub FIXME there anyway; I will update the second part with the specific fixme for unknown parameter. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3423#note_40573

1 0

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] MR3423: Iphlpapi: Implement NotifyAddrChange (part 1 of 2)
by Zebediah Figura (＠zfigura) 27 Jul '23

27 Jul '23

> Beyond the test included in the patches, I did roughly the following: ptr = VirtualAlloc(NULL 4096 \* 2, PAGE_NOACCESS); VirtualProtect(ptr, 4096, PAGE_READWRITE); params = ptr + 4096 - sizeof(\*params). And used that pointer. So far it doesn't access it beyond the end of accessible memory (that succeeds). Ah yes, that definitely sounds convincing to me :-) > It might happen that with some other values for unknown parameter it is using more data from the structure, but IMO exploring more details about those parameters, in the absence of any known app which uses those functions, looks like a waste of time to me. It is relatively easy here with nsi and was already explored for other functions so I didn't want to break this tradition in nsi, but in general it seems impractical to me to spend huge amount of time reversing the exact parameters of the undocumented functions which nothing is using directly. Not feasible for implementing larger APIs and the benefit is not obvious. And once something is using directly in a way we don't support we can rather easily look how and test with those parameters. Sure. I don't think we necessarily need to figure out the unknown parameter, or spend too much effort on reverse-engineering undocumented things in general, or closely matching undocumented APIs. I only get nervous about the prospect of implementing undocumented APIs that are incorrect in ways that would be subtle or hard to debug—wrong number of parameters, wrong struct sizes, and so on. To a degree, the fact that an application even uses such APIs means that it's a first place to look when debugging, but that's not exactly the kind of thing that's trivial to notice. > I could possibly add a fixme for nonzero unk parameter? That sounds like a unilaterally good idea to me, at least. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3423#note_40571

1 0

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] MR3423: Iphlpapi: Implement NotifyAddrChange (part 1 of 2)
by Paul Gofman (＠gofman) 27 Jul '23

27 Jul '23

Beyond the test included in the patches, I did roughly the following: ptr = VirtualAlloc(NULL 4096 * 2, PAGE_NOACCESS); VirtualProtect(ptr, 4096, PAGE_READWRITE); params = ptr + 4096 - sizeof(*params). And used that pointer. So far it doesn't access it beyond the end of accessible memory (that succeeds). It might happen that with some other values for unknown parameter it is using more data from the structure, but IMO exploring more details about those parameters, in the absence of any known app which uses those functions, looks like a waste of time to me. It is relatively easy here with nsi and was already explored for other functions so I didn't want to break this tradition in nsi, but in general it seems impractical to me to spend huge amount of time reversing the exact parameters of the undocumented functions which nothing is using directly. Not feasible for implementing larger APIs and the benefit is not obvious. And once something is using directly in a way we don't support we can rather easily look how and test with those parameters. I could possibly add a fixme for nonzero unk parameter? -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3423#note_40570

1 0

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] MR3423: Iphlpapi: Implement NotifyAddrChange (part 1 of 2)
by Zebediah Figura (＠zfigura) 27 Jul '23

27 Jul '23

Do we know for sure that the Ex version includes only those five parameters? It seems surprising that they'd reroll the API without adding anything. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3423#note_40569

1 0

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] MR3423: Iphlpapi: Implement NotifyAddrChange (part 1 of 2)
by Paul Gofman (＠gofman) 27 Jul '23

27 Jul '23

On Thu Jul 27 08:45:24 2023 +0000, Huw Davies wrote: > > So far I don't have anything for the other iphlpapi notification > functions (e. g., NotifyIpInterfaceChange). > I suspect the newer notifications like this one use the > `Nsi(De)RegisterChangeNotification()` api instead. Yes, it seems like it, I was just reasoning on how that could work (most notably, those notifications will need to deliver changed row). -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3423#note_40564

1 0

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] MR3423: Iphlpapi: Implement NotifyAddrChange (part 1 of 2)
by Paul Gofman (＠gofman) 27 Jul '23

27 Jul '23

v2: - split the MR (stop after handle caching commit); - test and add NsiRequestChangeNotificationEx (and move the implementation there); - Mind alphabetical sort when adding NsiCancelChangeNotification. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3423#note_40563

1 0

[PATCH v2 0/4] MR3423: Iphlpapi: Implement NotifyAddrChange (part 1 of 2)
by Paul Gofman (＠gofman) 27 Jul '23

27 Jul '23

-- v2: nsi: Cache nsi device handle. nsi/tests: Add test for change notifications. nsi: Add stub for NsiCancelChangeNotification. nsi: Add stubs for NsiRequestChangeNotification[Ex]. https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3423

2 4

[PATCH 0/1] MR3429: po: Update Finnish translation.
by Lauri Kenttä (＠lauri.kentta) 27 Jul '23

27 Jul '23

-- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3429

2 1

[PATCH v22 0/2] MR3391: mshtml: implement window.MutationObserver with MutationObserver stub
by Yuxuan Shui (＠yshui) 27 Jul '23

27 Jul '23

This get us pass the "Update your browser" blocker in adobe's sign-in page. The page itself doesn't make use of `window.MutationObserver`. However the sign-in page is still broken. -- v22: mshtml: add stubs for MutationObserver methods mshtml: implement window.MutationObserver with MutationObserver stub https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3391

3 3

2025

2024

2023

2022

wine-gitlab July 2023