+Cc: Alexander (related to Samba team I suppose, I'm sorry if I'm wrong) On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:36:31PM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx wrote: >> > > > I meant that to say that at least for now Andy's wmi-mof driver should still be >> > merged. >> > > > If something is going to build on top of this to do WBEM tools, they'll need that >> > MOF >> > > > data once someone figures out how to nicely deconstruct it. >> > > > >> > > >> > > The thing I don't like about my own driver is that, as a WMI device >> > > driver, it can be loaded before the rest of the bus finishes probing. >> > > So user programs that are notified asynchronously that the wmi-mof >> > > driver is loaded and try to use future functionality (ioctl to issue a >> > > MOF-based method call?) might end up doing so before the rest of the >> > > bus is probed. >> > > >> > > This could be addressed by always exposing the wmi-mof device last >> > > (sort of -- it can be a module) or perhaps by moving MOF functionality >> > > to the core driver. Or maybe it's not really a problem. >> > >> > Thanks Andy, I'll keep that in mind and see if I can come up with something to >> > address it while working on WMI this week. >> > >> > The other problem with wmi-mof is that there will be no immediate open source >> > consumers of the interface, and none on the horizon. We can't even test it to >> > any meaningful degree on Linux. I suspect this will be met with stiff >> > resistance. >> >> Well FWIW I did a quick PoC check with the binary that I got out of it to make >> sure it matched what was supposed to be. I brought it over to a Win10 box and >> decompiled using the mofcmp tool and those crazy arguments I mentioned and >> it was correct. >> >> I'd argue that even if there is no open source tools available today, not making >> the data available to userspace makes it difficult to even attempt to start >> to reverse engineer. >> >> Kernel config with default of "N" perhaps for wmi-mof? > > All true. There is a precedent we're working against on this. I'll include it in > my leveling-up thread today or tomorrow. > >> > >> > > >> > > Also, isn't there a way to ask Microsoft to document this? Are you >> > > supposed to "ask a question" on this forum, perhaps: >> > > >> > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg134029.aspx >> > > >> > > I'm guessing the Samba team knows how to do this, too. >> > > >> >> Microsoft treats this as an "intermediary" format. I'm not convinced >> that anyone other than MS knows anything about it today. Alexander, perhaps you would know someone who may help here? >> >> I agree asking them to document it is probably the right way to go. >> > > Mario, you are most likely in a better position to do that than I am. Would you > take that on? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
