Robert Baruch <autophile@starband.net> wrote: > I used WinDbg to show the memory protections that were placed on the > executable image just after it was loaded, and just before the app starts. > Here is what wine shows: > View: 0x400000 - 0x765fff 28 > 0x400000 - 0x765fff c-rw- > Here is what WinDbg shows (manually edited to look like the wine view): > 0x400000 - 0x400fff c-r-- (PAGE_READONLY) > 0x401000 - 0x454fff c--W- (PAGE_WRITECOPY) > 0x455000 - 0x455fff c-rw- (PAGE_READWRITE) > 0x456000 - 0x457fff c--W- (PAGE_WRITECOPY) > 0x458000 - 0x458fff c-rw- (PAGE_READWRITE) > 0x459000 - 0x459fff c-r-- (PAGE_READONLY) > 0x45a000 - 0x758fff c--W- (PAGE_WRITECOPY) > 0x759000 - 0x75afff c-r-- (PAGE_READONLY) > 0x75b000 - 0x75dfff c--W- (PAGE_WRITECOPY) > 0x75e000 - 0x75efff c-rw- (PAGE_READWRITE) > 0x75f000 - 0x762fff c-r-x (PAGE_EXECUTE_READ) > 0x763000 - 0x765fff c-r-- (PAGE_READONLY) > Remember, this is *before* the app even starts. > You can see from this that there is a difference between how Windows > loads an executable image and how Wine does it. This is why trying to > write to 0x75F07E throws an exception under W2K but succeeds under Wine. > I guess the W2K exception is the right one. > Wine developers: Should I attempt a patch, or am I going in the wrong > direction? No, you're entirely correct. Wine doesn't properly set memory protections of the executable file in the loader yet. IMHO this is a pretty damn grave omission. I'd be rather happy if you actually fixed that :-) (I once had another program which stumbled on this) -- Andreas Mohr, Renningen, Germany In case you need to contact me after expiry of temporary email address: my eternal (hopefully) email address is frqr2001 at the domain sneakemail.com
