Brian Dessent wrote on 12 March 2008 17:25:
> a) figure out which module of the process is the main one
> b) look up its ImageBase
> c) compute which page in that processes' VM corresponds to that
> ImageBase plus some magic offset (which also implicitly means that all
> subsystems must use exactl
Dave Korn wrote:
> Given that, it's therefore going to have been done as quickly and cheaply
> as possible, so why should we assume they wouldn't they just check the value
> in the PE header at the start of NtSetInformationProcess?
I know it's MS and everything, and if the subject was Outlook o
Corinna Vinschen wrote on 12 March 2008 16:23:
> On Mar 12 16:13, Dave Korn wrote:
> > Brian Dessent wrote on 12 March 2008 15:59:
> > > Dave Korn wrote:
> > > > Now, who supposes you could work around the restriction by writing
> > > >
> > > > * (WORD *) 0x004000dc = POSIX_CUI;
> > > >
> >
On Mar 12 16:13, Dave Korn wrote:
> Brian Dessent wrote on 12 March 2008 15:59:
> > Dave Korn wrote:
> > > Now, who supposes you could work around the restriction by writing
> > >
> > > * (WORD *) 0x004000dc = POSIX_CUI;
> > >
> > > just before calling NtSetInformation?
> >
> > How are you g
Brian Dessent wrote on 12 March 2008 15:59:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>
> > Now, who supposes you could work around the restriction by writing
> >
> > * (WORD *) 0x004000dc = POSIX_CUI;
> >
> > just before calling NtSetInformation?
>
> How are you going to fool the executive by poking around in t
Dave Korn wrote:
> Now, who supposes you could work around the restriction by writing
>
> * (WORD *) 0x004000dc = POSIX_CUI;
>
> just before calling NtSetInformation?
How are you going to fool the executive by poking around in the PE
header from userspace long after the process has initiali
Brian Dessent wrote on 12 March 2008 15:00:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>
> > The native API, to the very best of my knowledge, exports exactly the
> > same set of interfaces to every subsystem. Can you explain exactly
> > what you're talking about here?
>
> Microsoft Windows Internals, 4th. Ed (Russi
Dave Korn wrote:
> The native API, to the very best of my knowledge, exports exactly the same
> set of interfaces to every subsystem. Can you explain exactly what you're
> talking about here?
Microsoft Windows Internals, 4th. Ed (Russinovich & Solomon), p. 60:
> Because POSIX.1 compliance was
On Mar 12 12:16, Dave Korn wrote:
> Brian Dessent wrote on 11 March 2008 04:56:
>
> > - When the testcase's binary is located anywhere but %windir% or
> > %windir%\system32, then everything is fine.
> > - Otherwise you get:
>
> Ah. So the error only arises when the binary is located in windows
Brian Dessent wrote on 11 March 2008 04:56:
> - When the testcase's binary is located anywhere but %windir% or
> %windir%\system32, then everything is fine.
> - Otherwise you get:
Ah. So the error only arises when the binary is located in windows system
dir. Right alongside all those thousand
Linda Walsh wrote:
> There...now you've done it. You had me break 'gdb'.
Alright, let me see if I can summarize this entire failure into
something that's hopefully repeatable by anyone looking to reproduce it:
- The reduced testcase is: int main(int, char **) { fork(); }
- Working direc
Brian Dessent wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
Perhaps -- you don't, but my first symptom of a problem was a simple
cygwin
program refusing to run from cmd.exe. At the same time, I'm having
problems with 'bash' (or 'ash') as launched from windows as well -- in both
cases, the programs "used
12 matches
Mail list logo
