Windows System Software -- Consulting, Training, Development -- Unique Expertise, Guaranteed Results

Home NTDEV

Before Posting...

Please check out the Community Guidelines in the Announcements and Administration Category.

More Info on Driver Writing and Debugging


The free OSR Learning Library has more than 50 articles on a wide variety of topics about writing and debugging device drivers and Minifilters. From introductory level to advanced. All the articles have been recently reviewed and updated, and are written using the clear and definitive style you've come to expect from OSR over the years.


Check out The OSR Learning Library at: https://www.osr.com/osr-learning-library/


What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

Peter_Viscarola_(OSR)Peter_Viscarola_(OSR) Administrator Posts: 9,160
Bill McKenzie brought it up in another thread (about BDA, which to ME means "bios data area"... However, it now seems that all 3 letter acronyms have been used and are being recycled to mean different things... but I digress):

First:
<QUOTE>
We still don't get KMDF source right? Where is that battle by the way, is it a dead issue now?
</QUOTE>

Then, in a follow-up:
<QUOTE>
So, I guess source ain't gonna happen huh?
</QUOTE>

Good question, Bill. I wonder that too.

I know the devs were strongly in favor of this during KMDF development... so what happened?

Where IS the whole issue of KMDF source code being distributed with KMDF??

Because I suspect I know the answer, I'll list a few reasons that KMDF source code would be ultra-helpful:

1) Debugging would be VASTLY easier -- My favorite case is you've got KMDF Verifier on, you call a function KmdfBlahMakeMyDay... and you hit a breakpoint in the Framework. No message, just a break point. You dump the IFR. No information. There WILL be information in the log, of course, but it won't be there until after the higher-level KMDF function detects the error and PUTs it there. AFTER the breakpoint.

2) The little niggling bugs in KMDF would be more quickly spotted, and reported by the community (well, assuming we HAD a way to report them) -- I'm thinking of things like weirded-out error messages here.

3) Many of the existing limitations/inconsistencies/quirks of the current KMDF implementation would be clear... You wouldn't have to "try it" to see. Here I'm talking about things like which Objects can have ExecutionLevel constraints, how synch scope actually works, etc, etc...

4) The community would be able to verify the documentation for themselves, and report doc errors. Things like "What's the default sync scope"??

5) Devs could help each other with KMDF problems and issues. The KMDF community support program would be something more than "Let's ask Doron"

Are Bill and I the only ones in the community that thinks KMDF Source would be helpful? Anybody else "notice" that the KMDF source code never shipped??

Let me be clear: Nobody from MSFT, not once, ever actually promised to ship KMDF source code, so it's NOT an issue of "You promised but didn't deliver"... but during the project, when asked about source they DID certainly say "that's the plan" and "we're working on it".

So, seriously... where ARE we with getting source code for KMDF?

Maybe I need to turn this into a Pontification or an article or something, huh?? Maybe get this issue more exposure???

Peter
OSR

Peter Viscarola
OSR
@OSRDrivers

«1

Comments

  • Doron_HolanDoron_Holan Member - All Emails Posts: 10,829
    Short story: we pushed for it, got quite a bit of resistance internally
    from various angles and the community stopped asking for it, so we went
    on to other things. It is a lower priority item until we prove
    otherwise to the powers that be.

    As for how synch scope works, sometimes even I can't figure it out and
    have to ask eliyas, so the src might not be as instructive as you would
    like ;P. The sync stuff is something we want to completely revamp in a
    future version so that it is way easier to understand.

    d

    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email protected]
    [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
    Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:29 AM
    To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    Subject: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

    Bill McKenzie brought it up in another thread (about BDA, which to ME
    means "bios data area"... However, it now seems that all 3 letter
    acronyms have been used and are being recycled to mean different
    things... but I digress):

    First:
    <QUOTE>
    We still don't get KMDF source right? Where is that battle by the way,
    is it a dead issue now?
    </QUOTE>

    Then, in a follow-up:
    <QUOTE>
    So, I guess source ain't gonna happen huh?
    </QUOTE>

    Good question, Bill. I wonder that too.

    I know the devs were strongly in favor of this during KMDF
    development... so what happened?

    Where IS the whole issue of KMDF source code being distributed with
    KMDF??

    Because I suspect I know the answer, I'll list a few reasons that KMDF
    source code would be ultra-helpful:

    1) Debugging would be VASTLY easier -- My favorite case is you've got
    KMDF Verifier on, you call a function KmdfBlahMakeMyDay... and you hit a
    breakpoint in the Framework. No message, just a break point. You dump
    the IFR. No information. There WILL be information in the log, of
    course, but it won't be there until after the higher-level KMDF function
    detects the error and PUTs it there. AFTER the breakpoint.

    2) The little niggling bugs in KMDF would be more quickly spotted, and
    reported by the community (well, assuming we HAD a way to report them)
    -- I'm thinking of things like weirded-out error messages here.

    3) Many of the existing limitations/inconsistencies/quirks of the
    current KMDF implementation would be clear... You wouldn't have to "try
    it" to see. Here I'm talking about things like which Objects can have
    ExecutionLevel constraints, how synch scope actually works, etc, etc...

    4) The community would be able to verify the documentation for
    themselves, and report doc errors. Things like "What's the default sync
    scope"??

    5) Devs could help each other with KMDF problems and issues. The KMDF
    community support program would be something more than "Let's ask Doron"

    Are Bill and I the only ones in the community that thinks KMDF Source
    would be helpful? Anybody else "notice" that the KMDF source code never
    shipped??

    Let me be clear: Nobody from MSFT, not once, ever actually promised to
    ship KMDF source code, so it's NOT an issue of "You promised but didn't
    deliver"... but during the project, when asked about source they DID
    certainly say "that's the plan" and "we're working on it".

    So, seriously... where ARE we with getting source code for KMDF?

    Maybe I need to turn this into a Pontification or an article or
    something, huh?? Maybe get this issue more exposure???

    Peter
    OSR


    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
    d
  • Mark_RoddyMark_Roddy Member - All Emails Posts: 4,757
    Generally after the first few dozen "no sorry no way"s I just stop asking. I got the memo. No source. The super secret Open Driver Framework project will have to have progressed far enough to create sufficient FUD over in Redmond before there will be a change in policy.

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: [email protected] [mailto:bounce-289617-
    > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
    > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 11:29 AM
    > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    > Subject: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    >
    > Bill McKenzie brought it up in another thread (about BDA, which to ME
    > means "bios data area"... However, it now seems that all 3 letter
    > acronyms have been used and are being recycled to mean different
    > things... but I digress):
    >
    > First:
    > <QUOTE>
    > We still don't get KMDF source right? Where is that battle by the way,
    > is it a dead issue now?
    > </QUOTE>
    >
    > Then, in a follow-up:
    > <QUOTE>
    > So, I guess source ain't gonna happen huh?
    > </QUOTE>
    >
    > Good question, Bill. I wonder that too.
    >
    > I know the devs were strongly in favor of this during KMDF
    > development... so what happened?
    >
    > Where IS the whole issue of KMDF source code being distributed with
    > KMDF??
    >
    > Because I suspect I know the answer, I'll list a few reasons that KMDF
    > source code would be ultra-helpful:
    >
    > 1) Debugging would be VASTLY easier -- My favorite case is you've got
    > KMDF Verifier on, you call a function KmdfBlahMakeMyDay... and you hit
    > a breakpoint in the Framework. No message, just a break point. You
    > dump the IFR. No information. There WILL be information in the log,
    > of course, but it won't be there until after the higher-level KMDF
    > function detects the error and PUTs it there. AFTER the breakpoint.
    >
    > 2) The little niggling bugs in KMDF would be more quickly spotted, and
    > reported by the community (well, assuming we HAD a way to report them)
    > -- I'm thinking of things like weirded-out error messages here.
    >
    > 3) Many of the existing limitations/inconsistencies/quirks of the
    > current KMDF implementation would be clear... You wouldn't have to "try
    > it" to see. Here I'm talking about things like which Objects can have
    > ExecutionLevel constraints, how synch scope actually works, etc, etc...
    >
    > 4) The community would be able to verify the documentation for
    > themselves, and report doc errors. Things like "What's the default
    > sync scope"??
    >
    > 5) Devs could help each other with KMDF problems and issues. The KMDF
    > community support program would be something more than "Let's ask
    > Doron"
    >
    > Are Bill and I the only ones in the community that thinks KMDF Source
    > would be helpful? Anybody else "notice" that the KMDF source code
    > never shipped??
    >
    > Let me be clear: Nobody from MSFT, not once, ever actually promised to
    > ship KMDF source code, so it's NOT an issue of "You promised but didn't
    > deliver"... but during the project, when asked about source they DID
    > certainly say "that's the plan" and "we're working on it".
    >
    > So, seriously... where ARE we with getting source code for KMDF?
    >
    > Maybe I need to turn this into a Pontification or an article or
    > something, huh?? Maybe get this issue more exposure???
    >
    > Peter
    > OSR
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
  • Bill_McKenzie-3Bill_McKenzie-3 Member Posts: 267
    Very well stated...thank you Peter.

    I actually expected to get flamed bringing this back up. I am glad I am not
    alone in my concerns.

    One of my greatest fears, and it seems to be coming to pass, is that we are
    going to be forced to use this framework for any driver we want to get
    logo'd. If that happens, and I am certain it will, we, the driver
    development community, will have been instantly set back more than 10 years.

    We have always been dependent upon careful low-level observation, tidbits of
    information from Microsoft, experience, and each other for getting through
    issues we run into with kernel development. Not having much information or
    source, we have had to carefully piece together the intracacies,
    inconsistencies, errors, and holes that exist in this low-level world. Now,
    with the framework, we have a brand new model, new sets of DDIs and still no
    source. We start all over again.

    I love a technical challenge, but I hate being held up by mere hidden
    convention.

    Bill M.

    wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > Bill McKenzie brought it up in another thread (about BDA, which to ME
    > means "bios data area"... However, it now seems that all 3 letter acronyms
    > have been used and are being recycled to mean different things... but I
    > digress):
    >
    > First:
    >
    > We still don't get KMDF source right? Where is that battle by the way, is
    > it a dead issue now?
    >
    >
    > Then, in a follow-up:
    >
    > So, I guess source ain't gonna happen huh?
    >
    >
    > Good question, Bill. I wonder that too.
    >
    > I know the devs were strongly in favor of this during KMDF development...
    > so what happened?
    >
    > Where IS the whole issue of KMDF source code being distributed with KMDF??
    >
    > Because I suspect I know the answer, I'll list a few reasons that KMDF
    > source code would be ultra-helpful:
    >
    > 1) Debugging would be VASTLY easier -- My favorite case is you've got
    > KMDF Verifier on, you call a function KmdfBlahMakeMyDay... and you hit a
    > breakpoint in the Framework. No message, just a break point. You dump
    > the IFR. No information. There WILL be information in the log, of
    > course, but it won't be there until after the higher-level KMDF function
    > detects the error and PUTs it there. AFTER the breakpoint.
    >
    > 2) The little niggling bugs in KMDF would be more quickly spotted, and
    > reported by the community (well, assuming we HAD a way to report them) --
    > I'm thinking of things like weirded-out error messages here.
    >
    > 3) Many of the existing limitations/inconsistencies/quirks of the current
    > KMDF implementation would be clear... You wouldn't have to "try it" to
    > see. Here I'm talking about things like which Objects can have
    > ExecutionLevel constraints, how synch scope actually works, etc, etc...
    >
    > 4) The community would be able to verify the documentation for themselves,
    > and report doc errors. Things like "What's the default sync scope"??
    >
    > 5) Devs could help each other with KMDF problems and issues. The KMDF
    > community support program would be something more than "Let's ask Doron"
    >
    > Are Bill and I the only ones in the community that thinks KMDF Source
    > would be helpful? Anybody else "notice" that the KMDF source code never
    > shipped??
    >
    > Let me be clear: Nobody from MSFT, not once, ever actually promised to
    > ship KMDF source code, so it's NOT an issue of "You promised but didn't
    > deliver"... but during the project, when asked about source they DID
    > certainly say "that's the plan" and "we're working on it".
    >
    > So, seriously... where ARE we with getting source code for KMDF?
    >
    > Maybe I need to turn this into a Pontification or an article or something,
    > huh?? Maybe get this issue more exposure???
    >
    > Peter
    > OSR
    >
    >
  • Maxim_S._ShatskihMaxim_S._Shatskih Member Posts: 10,396
    I second this.

    KMDF is a framework like MFC. For such frameworks, source is critically
    important.

    --
    Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
    StorageCraft Corporation
    [email protected]
    http://www.storagecraft.com

    <[email protected]> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > Bill McKenzie brought it up in another thread (about BDA, which to ME means
    "bios data area"... However, it now seems that all 3 letter acronyms have been
    used and are being recycled to mean different things... but I digress):
    >
    > First:
    > <QUOTE>
    > We still don't get KMDF source right? Where is that battle by the way, is it
    a dead issue now?
    > </QUOTE>
    >
    > Then, in a follow-up:
    > <QUOTE>
    > So, I guess source ain't gonna happen huh?
    > </QUOTE>
    >
    > Good question, Bill. I wonder that too.
    >
    > I know the devs were strongly in favor of this during KMDF development... so
    what happened?
    >
    > Where IS the whole issue of KMDF source code being distributed with KMDF??
    >
    > Because I suspect I know the answer, I'll list a few reasons that KMDF source
    code would be ultra-helpful:
    >
    > 1) Debugging would be VASTLY easier -- My favorite case is you've got KMDF
    Verifier on, you call a function KmdfBlahMakeMyDay... and you hit a breakpoint
    in the Framework. No message, just a break point. You dump the IFR. No
    information. There WILL be information in the log, of course, but it won't be
    there until after the higher-level KMDF function detects the error and PUTs it
    there. AFTER the breakpoint.
    >
    > 2) The little niggling bugs in KMDF would be more quickly spotted, and
    reported by the community (well, assuming we HAD a way to report them) -- I'm
    thinking of things like weirded-out error messages here.
    >
    > 3) Many of the existing limitations/inconsistencies/quirks of the current
    KMDF implementation would be clear... You wouldn't have to "try it" to see.
    Here I'm talking about things like which Objects can have ExecutionLevel
    constraints, how synch scope actually works, etc, etc...
    >
    > 4) The community would be able to verify the documentation for themselves,
    and report doc errors. Things like "What's the default sync scope"??
    >
    > 5) Devs could help each other with KMDF problems and issues. The KMDF
    community support program would be something more than "Let's ask Doron"
    >
    > Are Bill and I the only ones in the community that thinks KMDF Source would
    be helpful? Anybody else "notice" that the KMDF source code never shipped??
    >
    > Let me be clear: Nobody from MSFT, not once, ever actually promised to ship
    KMDF source code, so it's NOT an issue of "You promised but didn't deliver"...
    but during the project, when asked about source they DID certainly say "that's
    the plan" and "we're working on it".
    >
    > So, seriously... where ARE we with getting source code for KMDF?
    >
    > Maybe I need to turn this into a Pontification or an article or something,
    huh?? Maybe get this issue more exposure???
    >
    > Peter
    > OSR
    >
    >
  • OSR_Community_UserOSR_Community_User Member Posts: 110,217
    If it ends up being a requirement or effectively the same, I'll give it
    a third.

    mm

    >>> [email protected] 2007-06-09 15:52 >>>
    I second this.

    KMDF is a framework like MFC. For such frameworks, source is
    critically
    important.

    --
    Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
    StorageCraft Corporation
    [email protected]
    http://www.storagecraft.com

    <[email protected]> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > Bill McKenzie brought it up in another thread (about BDA, which to ME
    means
    "bios data area"... However, it now seems that all 3 letter acronyms
    have been
    used and are being recycled to mean different things... but I
    digress):
    >
    > First:
    > <QUOTE>
    > We still don't get KMDF source right? Where is that battle by the
    way, is it
    a dead issue now?
    > </QUOTE>
    >
    > Then, in a follow-up:
    > <QUOTE>
    > So, I guess source ain't gonna happen huh?
    > </QUOTE>
    >
    > Good question, Bill. I wonder that too.
    >
    > I know the devs were strongly in favor of this during KMDF
    development... so
    what happened?
    >
    > Where IS the whole issue of KMDF source code being distributed with
    KMDF??
    >
    > Because I suspect I know the answer, I'll list a few reasons that
    KMDF source
    code would be ultra-helpful:
    >
    > 1) Debugging would be VASTLY easier -- My favorite case is you've
    got KMDF
    Verifier on, you call a function KmdfBlahMakeMyDay... and you hit a
    breakpoint
    in the Framework. No message, just a break point. You dump the IFR.
    No
    information. There WILL be information in the log, of course, but it
    won't be
    there until after the higher-level KMDF function detects the error and
    PUTs it
    there. AFTER the breakpoint.
    >
    > 2) The little niggling bugs in KMDF would be more quickly spotted,
    and
    reported by the community (well, assuming we HAD a way to report them)
    -- I'm
    thinking of things like weirded-out error messages here.
    >
    > 3) Many of the existing limitations/inconsistencies/quirks of the
    current
    KMDF implementation would be clear... You wouldn't have to "try it" to
    see.
    Here I'm talking about things like which Objects can have
    ExecutionLevel
    constraints, how synch scope actually works, etc, etc...
    >
    > 4) The community would be able to verify the documentation for
    themselves,
    and report doc errors. Things like "What's the default sync scope"??
    >
    > 5) Devs could help each other with KMDF problems and issues. The
    KMDF
    community support program would be something more than "Let's ask
    Doron"
    >
    > Are Bill and I the only ones in the community that thinks KMDF Source
    would
    be helpful? Anybody else "notice" that the KMDF source code never
    shipped??
    >
    > Let me be clear: Nobody from MSFT, not once, ever actually promised
    to ship
    KMDF source code, so it's NOT an issue of "You promised but didn't
    deliver"...
    but during the project, when asked about source they DID certainly say
    "that's
    the plan" and "we're working on it".
    >
    > So, seriously... where ARE we with getting source code for KMDF?
    >
    > Maybe I need to turn this into a Pontification or an article or
    something,
    huh?? Maybe get this issue more exposure???
    >
    > Peter
    > OSR
    >
    >


    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
  • Michal_Vodicka-2Michal_Vodicka-2 Member Posts: 1,612
    Well said, Peter. Yes, turn this into a Pontification, please. At least
    we will have something to read :)

    For me, missing sources is the main reason why I don't and won't use
    KMDF until I'm forced to do so.

    Actually, that's silly. Every developer understands why it is important
    to have framework sources but the decision was apparently made by
    different kind of people. I'd really like to know reasoning behind it.
    IMO MS can't lose anything, just gain. Take WinCE example. Almost
    complete sources are available for reading and it is really helpful. I
    was able to write working and stable USB driver within few weeks without
    any previous experience with CE. Without sources it'd be much more
    difficult.

    I'd see yet another reason why sources should be available based on my
    experience with USB. USB stack is buggy. At Vista, is is extremely
    buggy, at least for my taste. KMDF can be quite correct and may not work
    in some situations. Standard way, i.e. report bug and wait for hotfix
    takes ages. In most situations it is faster to make a workaround which
    solves a problem some non-standard way. One example for all: D0 IRP is
    sometimes blocked when sent in parallel with susprise removal path. The
    workaround for XP (IIRC) is no not wait for completion and forward
    remove IRP (or surpise remove, I don't remember just now), instead. IRP
    is completed in most cases. KMDF state machine would lockup waiting
    completion. With sources (and statically linked library!) it'd be
    possible to change KMDF the necessary way as I did in my WDM driver
    code. I'm sure KMDF developers wouldn't like this but I'm sorry, our
    customers don't care if it is our or MS bug, they just want to have
    working driver and want it NOW.

    Michal


    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email protected]
    [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
    Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:29 AM
    To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    Subject: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

    Bill McKenzie brought it up in another thread (about BDA, which to ME
    means "bios data area"... However, it now seems that all 3 letter
    acronyms have been used and are being recycled to mean different
    things... but I digress):

    First:
    <QUOTE>
    We still don't get KMDF source right? Where is that battle by the way,
    is it a dead issue now?
    </QUOTE>

    Then, in a follow-up:
    <QUOTE>
    So, I guess source ain't gonna happen huh?
    </QUOTE>

    Good question, Bill. I wonder that too.

    I know the devs were strongly in favor of this during KMDF
    development... so what happened?

    Where IS the whole issue of KMDF source code being distributed with
    KMDF??

    Because I suspect I know the answer, I'll list a few reasons that KMDF
    source code would be ultra-helpful:

    1) Debugging would be VASTLY easier -- My favorite case is you've got
    KMDF Verifier on, you call a function KmdfBlahMakeMyDay... and you hit a
    breakpoint in the Framework. No message, just a break point. You dump
    the IFR. No information. There WILL be information in the log, of
    course, but it won't be there until after the higher-level KMDF function
    detects the error and PUTs it there. AFTER the breakpoint.

    2) The little niggling bugs in KMDF would be more quickly spotted, and
    reported by the community (well, assuming we HAD a way to report them)
    -- I'm thinking of things like weirded-out error messages here.

    3) Many of the existing limitations/inconsistencies/quirks of the
    current KMDF implementation would be clear... You wouldn't have to "try
    it" to see. Here I'm talking about things like which Objects can have
    ExecutionLevel constraints, how synch scope actually works, etc, etc...

    4) The community would be able to verify the documentation for
    themselves, and report doc errors. Things like "What's the default sync
    scope"??

    5) Devs could help each other with KMDF problems and issues. The KMDF
    community support program would be something more than "Let's ask Doron"

    Are Bill and I the only ones in the community that thinks KMDF Source
    would be helpful? Anybody else "notice" that the KMDF source code never
    shipped??

    Let me be clear: Nobody from MSFT, not once, ever actually promised to
    ship KMDF source code, so it's NOT an issue of "You promised but didn't
    deliver"... but during the project, when asked about source they DID
    certainly say "that's the plan" and "we're working on it".

    So, seriously... where ARE we with getting source code for KMDF?

    Maybe I need to turn this into a Pontification or an article or
    something, huh?? Maybe get this issue more exposure???

    Peter
    OSR


    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
  • Peter_Viscarola_(OSR)Peter_Viscarola_(OSR) Administrator Posts: 9,160
    In the OTHER thread where KMDF source code, or lack thereof, was being discussed, Don Burn said in response to a call for KMDF source code being made available:

    <QUOTE author="don burn">
    Sorry, if you believe this then do not write in the kernel until you have negotiated a source license for Windows. All KMDF is is another kernel layer, the same as many other functions (if you step through a DDI in assembler, you will probably recognize a lot of the calls)...

    One of the great things about KMDF is that Doron, Elyias and others are willing to not only look things up, but will try to convey the model behind it...
    </QUOTE>

    So, let me make sure I understand your argument: Because the source code to ALL OF Windows isn't widely available to driver writers, then the source code to KMDF *also* shouldn't be mde widely available?? Because, ah, why... it might just make things EASIER?

    Don, Don, Don... Sure, the source code to KMDF could be abused. In fact, some of the things that our colleagues here on the list have recently suggested (like, using the source code to fix bugs) frightens the shit out of me. In fact, I've called for doing EXACTLY what they do for MFC: Release a non-buildable version of the source code.

    And yeaaaahhhh. Having source code access is no substitute for having the TECHNICAL LEAD for the Framework answer questions live, real-time, practically 24/7/365.

    But, in my not so humble opinion, better to have the source code available and give the community a CHANCE of supporting itself, than to have the entire community rely on Doron for support. Sure, Doron does an outstanding, terrific, wonderful, above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty job supporting KMDF specifically, and supporting the entire driver development community in general. But what happens if, G*d forbid, Doron tires of this or his management decides that his considerable skills can no longer be "wasted" answering support questions from "mere third parties"? You know what happens? Without community access to KMDF source code we're up shit creek, that's what.

    Peter
    OSR

    Peter Viscarola
    OSR
    @OSRDrivers

  • Don_Burn_1Don_Burn_1 Member Posts: 4,311
    wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > So, let me make sure I understand your argument: Because the source code
    > to ALL OF Windows isn't widely available to driver writers, then the
    > source code to KMDF *also* shouldn't be mde widely available?? Because,
    > ah, why... it might just make things EASIER?
    >
    > Don, Don, Don... Sure, the source code to KMDF could be abused. In fact,
    > some of the things that our colleagues here on the list have recently
    > suggested (like, using the source code to fix bugs) frightens the shit
    > out of me. In fact, I've called for doing EXACTLY what they do for MFC:
    > Release a non-buildable version of the source code.

    Peter,

    My argument was purely that if someone tries to justify not using KMDF
    because of the lack of source, then they should not be writing kernel mode
    code without Windows source. I do concur the source would be a great help,
    and hopefully Microsoft will not only release it, but put the resources
    into fixing the documentation when we start finding all the things that are
    incorrect in the doc's since we can read the source.

    My concern about abuse is even a simpler argument. My concern is that
    the source is not the definition it is the implementation. Developers will
    start using the source as documentation, and that leads to problems.

    Perhaps I am sensitive because in a previous life as an OS developer, I
    had to implement over 50 system calls of the form ***Ex because idiots in
    and out side of the company read the source, and realized they could play
    games with parameters that were undefined and supposed to be zero. Of
    course when the OS started checking for zero, not one of these developers
    had read the big comment at the start of each routine "THE RESERVED
    PARAMETERS NEED TO BE CHECKED FOR ZERO, SINCE WE PLAN ON USING NON-ZERO
    VALUES WITH VERSION 4.0". I could blame the original dev's who did not add
    the checks, but you would think someone could read.


    --
    Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
    Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
    Website: http://www.windrvr.com
    Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
    Remove StopSpam to reply
  • Michal_Vodicka-2Michal_Vodicka-2 Member Posts: 1,612
    > My argument was purely that if someone tries to justify not using
    > KMDF
    > because of the lack of source, then they should not be writing kernel
    mode
    > code without Windows source.

    Sure, I believe Windows sources should be available, too. Again, there
    is WinCE example.

    However, in the real world the choice is to write Windows drivers
    without Windows sources or don't write them. I decided to do it long
    time ago so I can live with it. KMDF is different; it isn't mandatory
    (yet?) and it is a framework where is it much easier to argue sources
    should be available than for whole OS.


    > My concern about abuse is even a simpler argument. My concern is
    that
    > the source is not the definition it is the implementation. Developers
    > will
    > start using the source as documentation, and that leads to problems.

    Of course. But not having sources leads to different kind of problems
    and I believe there is more cons than pros.

    >
    > Perhaps I am sensitive because in a previous life as an OS
    developer,
    > I
    > had to implement over 50 system calls of the form ***Ex because idiots
    in
    > and out side of the company read the source, and realized they could
    play
    > games with parameters that were undefined and supposed to be zero. Of
    > course when the OS started checking for zero, not one of these
    developers
    > had read the big comment at the start of each routine "THE RESERVED
    > PARAMETERS NEED TO BE CHECKED FOR ZERO, SINCE WE PLAN ON USING
    NON-ZERO
    > VALUES WITH VERSION 4.0". I could blame the original dev's who did
    not
    > add
    > the checks, but you would think someone could read.

    Anybody with disassembler can play the same games with parameters. Or
    even without it. The blame is on original devs who didn't add the
    checks. If an interface is defined, implementation should make at least
    asserts to verify callers' behaviour.

    In other words, I don't take this argument. I define interfaces for my
    coworkers who have full access to the implementation which is also mine.
    And we don't have this kind of problems because there are asserts
    everywhere and it is mandatory code runs with asserts enabled.

    Michal
  • Michal_Vodicka-2Michal_Vodicka-2 Member Posts: 1,612
    > In fact,
    > some of the things that our colleagues here on the list have recently
    > suggested (like, using the source code to fix bugs) frightens the shit
    out
    > of me.

    So what's you proposal for the scenario when you encounter an OS bug and
    a customer don't care? They want something working within few days (with
    WHQL signature, prefferably) and you know going through MS support would
    take at least two months. Management doesn't care about technical
    details; it's your responsibility to solve it some way. You'd find a
    workaround usable for WDM driver which can't be used with KMDF without
    its modification.

    It is last resort solution but I encontered this situation several times
    within past year (and love Vista :-#). From technical point of view it
    is wrong approach but in the real world technical arguments aren't
    always considered.

    Michal
  • OSR_Community_UserOSR_Community_User Member Posts: 110,217
    Don Burn wrote:
    > Developers will
    > start using the source as documentation, and that leads to problems.

    A well-known difficulty of the open-source community. The only known solution is to emphasize documentation. You really have to take the position of "if your program uses undocumented features, it will break in a future release and don't cry to us if it does." It's true that Microsoft's Win32 API has taken the opposite stance (because backwards-compatibility is a selling point), but no one expects that from their kernel APIs.

    There's a history of Microsoft freely distributing source to libraries (CRT), frameworks (MFC) and tools (I found the DevCon source very helpful), and even supporting open-source projects (WiX comes to mind) - however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest. The real question is whether KMDF is really a framework/library or should be considered part of their OS.

    Consider the following points:
    . KMDF is the recommended starting point for all future drivers as well as any drivers that will need future changes.
    . Microsoft has suggested that KMDF will be supported on future versions of Windows. Someone had a nice quote about how KMDF can actually act as a portability layer for device drivers.

    In fact, the only ways that KMDF behaves more like a framework is its distribution (as a co-installer) and the fact that it's completely optional (for now).

    Now, I haven't been around the driver world for a long time, but it seems to me that KMDF is poised to become the next WDM (not an exact analogy, since some KMDF drivers will have to dip into the lower-level WDM). I would not be surprised if in 10 years Windows logo testing required KMDF drivers, and the KMDF binaries were updated through Windows Update.

    If that happens, then KMDF should be considered part of the Windows OS, and not a separate framework by itself. And in that case, releasing the source would not be in Microsoft's best interest.

    These random ramblings on a peaceful Sunday afternoon were brought to you by:
    -Stephen Cleary
  • Maxim_S._ShatskihMaxim_S._Shatskih Member Posts: 10,396
    > But, in my not so humble opinion, better to have the source code available
    and
    >give the community a CHANCE of supporting itself, than to have the entire
    >community rely on Doron for support.

    ...and this is exactly how the things are going with KMDF for now. Really so.

    --
    Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
    StorageCraft Corporation
    [email protected]
    http://www.storagecraft.com
  • Maxim_S._ShatskihMaxim_S._Shatskih Member Posts: 10,396
    > > Developers will
    > > start using the source as documentation, and that leads to problems.
    >
    > A well-known difficulty of the open-source community.

    Correct, if you avoid using "static" keyword for functions which you do not
    want to define to the public.

    Also, IIRC the UNIX linkers expose _all non-static_ functions as module
    exports, they do not understand __declspec(dllexport) and the DEF files.

    --
    Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
    StorageCraft Corporation
    [email protected]
    http://www.storagecraft.com
  • Peter_Viscarola_(OSR)Peter_Viscarola_(OSR) Administrator Posts: 9,160
    Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating system:

    <QUOTE>
    however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest.
    </QUOTE>

    Do you really believe this? I don't and never have.

    I know that Microsoft *believes* it is not in their best interest to release the Windows OS source code. I don't think they should release a BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would be, entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows OS widely available.

    Sure... some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff. Whatever. Those people get what they deserve.

    Sure... some other jerks will exploit security loopholes... Guess those loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??

    But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source code? Note that there's a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on Chinese and Russian sites).

    If I were "King for a Day" at Microsoft, I'd release the OS source code for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly well written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender. The good feelings among the community members.

    And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you could LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety for guidance.

    P

    Peter Viscarola
    OSR
    @OSRDrivers

  • Michal_Vodicka-2Michal_Vodicka-2 Member Posts: 1,612
    Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I'd
    emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
    what happened? Nothing noticeable.

    MS can't lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
    necessary power realizes it.

    Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
    code. I'm looking forward for it ;-)

    Michal

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: [email protected] [mailto:bounce-289760-
    > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
    > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
    > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    > Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    >
    > Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
    > system:
    >
    > <QUOTE>
    > however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest.
    > </QUOTE>
    >
    > Do you really believe this? I don't and never have.
    >
    > I know that Microsoft *believes* it is not in their best interest to
    > release the Windows OS source code. I don't think they should release
    a
    > BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
    be,
    > entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
    OS
    > widely available.
    >
    > Sure... some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
    Whatever.
    > Those people get what they deserve.
    >
    > Sure... some other jerks will exploit security loopholes... Guess
    those
    > loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
    >
    > But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
    code?
    > Note that there's a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
    > Chinese and Russian sites).
    >
    > If I were "King for a Day" at Microsoft, I'd release the OS source
    code
    > for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
    well
    > written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
    The
    > good feelings among the community members.
    >
    > And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
    could
    > LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
    for
    > guidance.
    >
    > P
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
  • cristalink-2cristalink-2 Member Posts: 79
    I guess the source code inevitably violates many software patents, so it
    will be easier for the patent owners to find a reason for a new lawsuit.




    wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
    > system:
    >
    >
    > however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest.
    >
    >
    > Do you really believe this? I don't and never have.
    >
    > I know that Microsoft *believes* it is not in their best interest to
    > release the Windows OS source code. I don't think they should release a
    > BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would be,
    > entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows OS
    > widely available.
    >
    > Sure... some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff. Whatever.
    > Those people get what they deserve.
    >
    > Sure... some other jerks will exploit security loopholes... Guess those
    > loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
    >
    > But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source code?
    > Note that there's a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
    > Chinese and Russian sites).
    >
    > If I were "King for a Day" at Microsoft, I'd release the OS source code
    > for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly well
    > written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender. The
    > good feelings among the community members.
    >
    > And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you could
    > LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety for
    > guidance.
    >
    > P
    >
  • OSR_Community_UserOSR_Community_User Member Posts: 110,217
    So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on what you'd be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to hear too.

    Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS. I'd personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

    At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

    -p

    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
    Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
    To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

    Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I'd
    emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
    what happened? Nothing noticeable.

    MS can't lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
    necessary power realizes it.

    Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
    code. I'm looking forward for it ;-)

    Michal

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: [email protected] [mailto:bounce-289760-
    > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
    > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
    > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    > Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    >
    > Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
    > system:
    >
    > <QUOTE>
    > however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest.
    > </QUOTE>
    >
    > Do you really believe this? I don't and never have.
    >
    > I know that Microsoft *believes* it is not in their best interest to
    > release the Windows OS source code. I don't think they should release
    a
    > BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
    be,
    > entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
    OS
    > widely available.
    >
    > Sure... some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
    Whatever.
    > Those people get what they deserve.
    >
    > Sure... some other jerks will exploit security loopholes... Guess
    those
    > loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
    >
    > But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
    code?
    > Note that there's a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
    > Chinese and Russian sites).
    >
    > If I were "King for a Day" at Microsoft, I'd release the OS source
    code
    > for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
    well
    > written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
    The
    > good feelings among the community members.
    >
    > And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
    could
    > LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
    for
    > guidance.
    >
    > P
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
  • Tim_RobertsTim_Roberts Member - All Emails Posts: 14,837
    Peter Wieland wrote:
    > So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on what you'd be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to hear too.
    >
    > Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS. I'd personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.
    >
    > At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?
    >

    This is a good point. As a DDK MVP, I was offered the opportunity to
    gain access to the source code. I seriously considered it, but after
    reading through the agreement documents, my concerns about
    contamination, and about what I could say and what I couldn't say, were
    just enough over the comfort line for me that I turned it down. Now, if
    I took some dedicated quiet time and read the documents more carefully,
    I would probably find that my concerns were unfounded, but I'm afraid
    I'd need a lawyer to be 100% sure.

    --
    Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

    Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    Software Wizard Emeritus

  • Daniel_TerhellDaniel_Terhell Member Posts: 1,361
    Are you talking about complete OS source access or just the KMDF ?

    I admit the risk of some company releasing their own Windows distribution
    after doing some clever searches and replaces with a text editor and running
    some clever obfuscator and doing some tasks out of order and some other
    changes in such a way that it will be difficult for MS to prove to the judge
    at the binary level it was originally created from the same source is not
    unimaginable. I don't know what a non-buildable version of the source
    exactly means, if it just omits the makefiles I think it does not change
    much.

    However it is hard to imagine what is the potential risk of MS of just
    releasing the KMDF source. I heard something like the academic source
    license has some reasonable restrictions about posting no more than 50
    lines. But I think not being allowed at all to publicly quote from the
    source is going to be too hard for some.

    /Daniel



    "Peter Wieland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
    what you'd be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
    hear too.

    Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
    I'd personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that
    there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

    At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

    -p

    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email protected]
    [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
    Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
    To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

    Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I'd
    emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
    what happened? Nothing noticeable.

    MS can't lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
    necessary power realizes it.

    Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
    code. I'm looking forward for it ;-)

    Michal

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: [email protected] [mailto:bounce-289760-
    > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
    > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
    > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    > Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    >
    > Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
    > system:
    >
    > <QUOTE>
    > however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest.
    > </QUOTE>
    >
    > Do you really believe this? I don't and never have.
    >
    > I know that Microsoft *believes* it is not in their best interest to
    > release the Windows OS source code. I don't think they should release
    a
    > BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
    be,
    > entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
    OS
    > widely available.
    >
    > Sure... some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
    Whatever.
    > Those people get what they deserve.
    >
    > Sure... some other jerks will exploit security loopholes... Guess
    those
    > loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
    >
    > But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
    code?
    > Note that there's a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
    > Chinese and Russian sites).
    >
    > If I were "King for a Day" at Microsoft, I'd release the OS source
    code
    > for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
    well
    > written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
    The
    > good feelings among the community members.
    >
    > And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
    could
    > LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
    for
    > guidance.
    >
    > P
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
  • Bill_McKenzie-3Bill_McKenzie-3 Member Posts: 267
    I am not even sure you could say that they gave you the opportunity :-)

    Bill M.

    "Tim Roberts" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > Peter Wieland wrote:
    >> So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
    >> what you'd be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
    >> hear too.
    >>
    >> Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
    >> I'd personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out
    >> that there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.
    >>
    >> At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept
    >> them?
    >>
    >
    > This is a good point. As a DDK MVP, I was offered the opportunity to
    > gain access to the source code. I seriously considered it, but after
    > reading through the agreement documents, my concerns about
    > contamination, and about what I could say and what I couldn't say, were
    > just enough over the comfort line for me that I turned it down. Now, if
    > I took some dedicated quiet time and read the documents more carefully,
    > I would probably find that my concerns were unfounded, but I'm afraid
    > I'd need a lawyer to be 100% sure.
    >
    > --
    > Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
    >
    >
  • Bill_McKenzie-3Bill_McKenzie-3 Member Posts: 267
    This is kind of humurous. How, pray tell, would one think MSFT would be in
    some bad position by giving out source? I mean really...who is going to
    displace you in the operating system arena? The only thing MSFT has to
    worry is disruptive technologies. It is EXACTLY akin to IBM in the main
    frame days. If it hadn't been for PCs (a disruptive technology), I dare say
    we would still all be buying from Big Blue. No one can compete against
    Microsoft with an operating system even if they threw an army of developers
    at the problem. Windows isn't number one because of the cool programming
    you guys put into it. It is number one because it has had years to grow
    roots.

    No, the only risk to Microsoft is PCs not being the machine on everyones'
    desktops. Other than that, this is just silly.

    The ONLY reason I want source is so that I can make OUR software better on
    Microsoft's operating system. If my software sucks...guess who the end user
    blames? Does "Yeah Windows crashes all the time" sound familiar to you?
    Okay...don't give me source...fine.

    I tell you what, I would be willing to sign an agreement that my company
    would ship our products on Windows operating systems for some reasonable
    block of time into the future. How's that?

    Bill M.


    "Peter Wieland" wrote in message
    news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
    what you'd be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
    hear too.

    Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
    I'd personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that
    there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

    At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

    -p

    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email protected]
    [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
    Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
    To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

    Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I'd
    emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
    what happened? Nothing noticeable.

    MS can't lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
    necessary power realizes it.

    Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
    code. I'm looking forward for it ;-)

    Michal

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: [email protected] [mailto:bounce-289760-
    > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
    > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
    > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    > Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    >
    > Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
    > system:
    >
    >
    > however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest.
    >
    >
    > Do you really believe this? I don't and never have.
    >
    > I know that Microsoft *believes* it is not in their best interest to
    > release the Windows OS source code. I don't think they should release
    a
    > BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
    be,
    > entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
    OS
    > widely available.
    >
    > Sure... some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
    Whatever.
    > Those people get what they deserve.
    >
    > Sure... some other jerks will exploit security loopholes... Guess
    those
    > loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
    >
    > But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
    code?
    > Note that there's a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
    > Chinese and Russian sites).
    >
    > If I were "King for a Day" at Microsoft, I'd release the OS source
    code
    > for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
    well
    > written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
    The
    > good feelings among the community members.
    >
    > And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
    could
    > LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
    for
    > guidance.
    >
    > P
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
  • David_J._CraigDavid_J._Craig Member Posts: 1,885
    I have heard that source code licensees receive media with the sources they
    are allowed to have on them, a smartcard, and a smartcard reader. Most of
    this is rumor, but from fairly reliable, I hope, sources. I presume most
    have to sign a NDA to receive that access. In companies, how to obtain
    enough copies for several to many developers becomes a problem to be solved.
    I see from my perspective of currently working in the NDIS arena, but
    previously being in the storage and filesystems areas that sources to KMDF,
    IoManager, MountManager, Ftdisk, CacheManager, NTFS, NDIS, Kernel and Hal
    sources would be useful. A corporate level NDA would be acceptable, but if
    it was restricted in that info could not be shared with co-workers in the
    same company that might make the access much less useful to the company, but
    still very valuable individually.

    --
    David J. Craig
    Engineer, Sr. Staff Software Systems
    Broadcom Corporation


    "Peter Wieland" wrote in message
    news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
    what you'd be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
    hear too.

    Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
    I'd personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that
    there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

    At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

    -p

    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email protected]
    [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
    Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
    To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

    Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I'd
    emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
    what happened? Nothing noticeable.

    MS can't lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
    necessary power realizes it.

    Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
    code. I'm looking forward for it ;-)

    Michal

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: [email protected] [mailto:bounce-289760-
    > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
    > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
    > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    > Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    >
    > Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
    > system:
    >
    >
    > however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest.
    >
    >
    > Do you really believe this? I don't and never have.
    >
    > I know that Microsoft *believes* it is not in their best interest to
    > release the Windows OS source code. I don't think they should release
    a
    > BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
    be,
    > entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
    OS
    > widely available.
    >
    > Sure... some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
    Whatever.
    > Those people get what they deserve.
    >
    > Sure... some other jerks will exploit security loopholes... Guess
    those
    > loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
    >
    > But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
    code?
    > Note that there's a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
    > Chinese and Russian sites).
    >
    > If I were "King for a Day" at Microsoft, I'd release the OS source
    code
    > for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
    well
    > written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
    The
    > good feelings among the community members.
    >
    > And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
    could
    > LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
    for
    > guidance.
    >
    > P
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
  • Bill_McKenzie-3Bill_McKenzie-3 Member Posts: 267
    If we are talking about KMDF source, I would be REAL curious to know what
    the risk is? People might actually be able to see how certain kernel
    operations should be done and thus won't do those things wrong?

    Bill M.


    "Daniel Terhell" wrote in message
    news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > Are you talking about complete OS source access or just the KMDF ?
    >
    > I admit the risk of some company releasing their own Windows distribution
    > after doing some clever searches and replaces with a text editor and
    > running some clever obfuscator and doing some tasks out of order and some
    > other changes in such a way that it will be difficult for MS to prove to
    > the judge at the binary level it was originally created from the same
    > source is not unimaginable. I don't know what a non-buildable version of
    > the source exactly means, if it just omits the makefiles I think it does
    > not change much.
    >
    > However it is hard to imagine what is the potential risk of MS of just
    > releasing the KMDF source. I heard something like the academic source
    > license has some reasonable restrictions about posting no more than 50
    > lines. But I think not being allowed at all to publicly quote from the
    > source is going to be too hard for some.
    >
    > /Daniel
    >
    >
    >
    > "Peter Wieland" wrote in message
    > news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
    > what you'd be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
    > hear too.
    >
    > Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
    > I'd personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that
    > there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.
    >
    > At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept
    > them?
    >
    > -p
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: [email protected]
    > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
    > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
    > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    > Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    >
    > Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I'd
    > emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
    > what happened? Nothing noticeable.
    >
    > MS can't lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
    > necessary power realizes it.
    >
    > Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
    > code. I'm looking forward for it ;-)
    >
    > Michal
    >
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: [email protected] [mailto:bounce-289760-
    >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
    >> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
    >> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    >> Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    >>
    >> Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
    >> system:
    >>
    >>
    >> however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest.
    >>
    >>
    >> Do you really believe this? I don't and never have.
    >>
    >> I know that Microsoft *believes* it is not in their best interest to
    >> release the Windows OS source code. I don't think they should release
    > a
    >> BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
    > be,
    >> entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
    > OS
    >> widely available.
    >>
    >> Sure... some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
    > Whatever.
    >> Those people get what they deserve.
    >>
    >> Sure... some other jerks will exploit security loopholes... Guess
    > those
    >> loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
    >>
    >> But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
    > code?
    >> Note that there's a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
    >> Chinese and Russian sites).
    >>
    >> If I were "King for a Day" at Microsoft, I'd release the OS source
    > code
    >> for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
    > well
    >> written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
    > The
    >> good feelings among the community members.
    >>
    >> And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
    > could
    >> LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
    > for
    >> guidance.
    >>
    >> P
    >>
    >> ---
    >> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    >> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >>
    >> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    >> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
    >
    >
    >
  • Prokash_Sinha-1Prokash_Sinha-1 Member - All Emails Posts: 1,214
    Ah, this is my playground now ;) Anyone can whack on my head, but what
    the hell... ? Following few paras are neither programming nor math ( so
    assume full of ambiguities and room for fire ).

    1) What should be published:- I particularly don't care much about
    published code, but if you try to publish just kmdf and umdf, then if no
    one does it, I will start complaining at this site. If there is a plan for
    publishing, then at least the I/O sub-systems or some smaller logical
    component that in isolation would give devs some level of detail they
    would need. Again I think the whole of I/O subsystem would be the
    candidate component...

    2) Who should be the guena pigs:- Of course MVPs should be the first one,
    and they could perhaps be more active instead of just depending on you,
    doron, Elyias, Jake, ... Others can possibly have component level source
    licensing for small fee ( note that some big companies have src license
    already, and if person x does copy these codes and leave the company some
    day, and never exposes this fact that (s)he have those codes, and uses it
    loyally or maliciously it would be fairly hard to track, so perhaps
    signing is not effective, and I still prefer that it should be to MVPs)

    3) What should be signed:- If it is just MVPs, then perhaps they are
    already trusted, and loyal and keeping it in a limited exposure ( if you
    mean that way by signing, in stead of open-src idea ).

    4) Rest of the crowd:- Lot of companies are even hesitant to send their
    devs for training or conference, so they might not want to sign anything
    !!!

    5) Mode of availability:- I would prefer that the subcomponent is/are
    buildable, so that those who are debugging can see it in action. Give some
    one 100+ thousands line of codes in static form ( so that they can not
    build), you will see the interest levels drops. For me it is absolutely
    essential, since most of the time I debug some-one-elses' whims and
    desires and that could span a very large spectrum of driver and app world.

    -pro



    2) Before you publish, what is the compelling reason from the devs
    > So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback
    on
    > what you'd be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
    hear too.
    >
    > Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.

    > I'd personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out
    that
    > there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.
    >
    > At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?
    >
    > -p
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: [email protected]
    > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
    Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
    > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    > Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    >
    > Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I'd
    emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
    what happened? Nothing noticeable.
    >
    > MS can't lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
    necessary power realizes it.
    >
    > Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
    code. I'm looking forward for it ;-)
    >
    > Michal
    >
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: [email protected] [mailto:bounce-289760-
    >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
    >> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
    >> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    >> Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    >> Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
    system:
    >> <QUOTE>
    >> however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest.
    >> </QUOTE>
    >> Do you really believe this? I don't and never have.
    >> I know that Microsoft *believes* it is not in their best interest to
    release the Windows OS source code. I don't think they should release
    > a
    >> BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
    > be,
    >> entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
    > OS
    >> widely available.
    >> Sure... some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
    > Whatever.
    >> Those people get what they deserve.
    >> Sure... some other jerks will exploit security loopholes... Guess
    > those
    >> loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
    >> But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
    > code?
    >> Note that there's a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
    Chinese and Russian sites).
    >> If I were "King for a Day" at Microsoft, I'd release the OS source
    > code
    >> for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
    > well
    >> written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
    > The
    >> good feelings among the community members.
    >> And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
    > could
    >> LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
    > for
    >> guidance.
    >> P
    >> ---
    >> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    >> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    >> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
    >
  • OSR_Community_UserOSR_Community_User Member Posts: 110,217
    I'm just talking about the KMDF source code. I'm in no position to push for public release of all Windows OS sources (not that I can "push" for KMDF source, but at least I'm on the list of people who would need to nod yes.)

    -p

    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Terhell
    Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:14 PM
    To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    Subject: Re:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

    Are you talking about complete OS source access or just the KMDF ?

    I admit the risk of some company releasing their own Windows distribution
    after doing some clever searches and replaces with a text editor and running
    some clever obfuscator and doing some tasks out of order and some other
    changes in such a way that it will be difficult for MS to prove to the judge
    at the binary level it was originally created from the same source is not
    unimaginable. I don't know what a non-buildable version of the source
    exactly means, if it just omits the makefiles I think it does not change
    much.

    However it is hard to imagine what is the potential risk of MS of just
    releasing the KMDF source. I heard something like the academic source
    license has some reasonable restrictions about posting no more than 50
    lines. But I think not being allowed at all to publicly quote from the
    source is going to be too hard for some.

    /Daniel



    "Peter Wieland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
    what you'd be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
    hear too.

    Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
    I'd personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that
    there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

    At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

    -p

    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email protected]
    [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
    Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
    To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

    Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I'd
    emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
    what happened? Nothing noticeable.

    MS can't lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
    necessary power realizes it.

    Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
    code. I'm looking forward for it ;-)

    Michal

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: [email protected] [mailto:bounce-289760-
    > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
    > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
    > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    > Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    >
    > Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
    > system:
    >
    > <QUOTE>
    > however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest.
    > </QUOTE>
    >
    > Do you really believe this? I don't and never have.
    >
    > I know that Microsoft *believes* it is not in their best interest to
    > release the Windows OS source code. I don't think they should release
    a
    > BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
    be,
    > entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
    OS
    > widely available.
    >
    > Sure... some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
    Whatever.
    > Those people get what they deserve.
    >
    > Sure... some other jerks will exploit security loopholes... Guess
    those
    > loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
    >
    > But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
    code?
    > Note that there's a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
    > Chinese and Russian sites).
    >
    > If I were "King for a Day" at Microsoft, I'd release the OS source
    code
    > for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
    well
    > written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
    The
    > good feelings among the community members.
    >
    > And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
    could
    > LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
    for
    > guidance.
    >
    > P
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer



    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
  • Bill_McKenzie-3Bill_McKenzie-3 Member Posts: 267
    Oh in that case...I would be more than willing to sign the same documents I
    sign for MFC, ATL, and .NET framework source.

    Bill M.

    "Peter Wieland" wrote in message
    news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    I'm just talking about the KMDF source code. I'm in no position to push for
    public release of all Windows OS sources (not that I can "push" for KMDF
    source, but at least I'm on the list of people who would need to nod yes.)

    -p

    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email protected]
    [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Terhell
    Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:14 PM
    To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    Subject: Re:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

    Are you talking about complete OS source access or just the KMDF ?

    I admit the risk of some company releasing their own Windows distribution
    after doing some clever searches and replaces with a text editor and running
    some clever obfuscator and doing some tasks out of order and some other
    changes in such a way that it will be difficult for MS to prove to the judge
    at the binary level it was originally created from the same source is not
    unimaginable. I don't know what a non-buildable version of the source
    exactly means, if it just omits the makefiles I think it does not change
    much.

    However it is hard to imagine what is the potential risk of MS of just
    releasing the KMDF source. I heard something like the academic source
    license has some reasonable restrictions about posting no more than 50
    lines. But I think not being allowed at all to publicly quote from the
    source is going to be too hard for some.

    /Daniel



    "Peter Wieland" wrote in message
    news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
    what you'd be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
    hear too.

    Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
    I'd personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that
    there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

    At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

    -p

    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email protected]
    [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
    Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
    To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

    Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I'd
    emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
    what happened? Nothing noticeable.

    MS can't lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
    necessary power realizes it.

    Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
    code. I'm looking forward for it ;-)

    Michal

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: [email protected] [mailto:bounce-289760-
    > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
    > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
    > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    > Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    >
    > Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
    > system:
    >
    >
    > however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest.
    >
    >
    > Do you really believe this? I don't and never have.
    >
    > I know that Microsoft *believes* it is not in their best interest to
    > release the Windows OS source code. I don't think they should release
    a
    > BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
    be,
    > entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
    OS
    > widely available.
    >
    > Sure... some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
    Whatever.
    > Those people get what they deserve.
    >
    > Sure... some other jerks will exploit security loopholes... Guess
    those
    > loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
    >
    > But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
    code?
    > Note that there's a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
    > Chinese and Russian sites).
    >
    > If I were "King for a Day" at Microsoft, I'd release the OS source
    code
    > for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
    well
    > written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
    The
    > good feelings among the community members.
    >
    > And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
    could
    > LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
    for
    > guidance.
    >
    > P
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer



    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
  • OSR_Community_UserOSR_Community_User Member Posts: 110,217
    > Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS. I'd personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

    I don't think you can consider risk by itself. You have to factor in
    the reward to have a meaningful metric. I think it's more accurate to
    say "there are people who think that source access has a very low
    risk/reward ratio". Seems to me the upside for developers having at
    least *some* source is huge for everyone involved--including
    Microsoft.

    Anyway, what risk are you talking about? I honestly have no idea.

    > At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

    What sort of restrictions are you talking about? Basically, if the
    restrictions are financially favorable to time lost slogging through
    the OS at assembly level trying to figure out what you're doing wrong,
    then it's a win. IMO, the restrictions could be pretty high and still
    be acceptable--but then again I don't have a clear idea about what you
    have in mind.
  • OSR_Community_UserOSR_Community_User Member Posts: 110,217
    Meaning?

    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill McKenzie
    Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:17 PM
    To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    Subject: Re:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

    I am not even sure you could say that they gave you the opportunity :-)

    Bill M.

    "Tim Roberts" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > Peter Wieland wrote:
    >> So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
    >> what you'd be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
    >> hear too.
    >>
    >> Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
    >> I'd personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out
    >> that there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.
    >>
    >> At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept
    >> them?
    >>
    >
    > This is a good point. As a DDK MVP, I was offered the opportunity to
    > gain access to the source code. I seriously considered it, but after
    > reading through the agreement documents, my concerns about
    > contamination, and about what I could say and what I couldn't say, were
    > just enough over the comfort line for me that I turned it down. Now, if
    > I took some dedicated quiet time and read the documents more carefully,
    > I would probably find that my concerns were unfounded, but I'm afraid
    > I'd need a lawyer to be 100% sure.
    >
    > --
    > Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
    >
    >



    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
  • Peter_Viscarola_(OSR)Peter_Viscarola_(OSR) Administrator Posts: 9,160
    David Craig on Windows OS source code access:

    <QUOTE>
    I have heard that source code licensees receive media with the sources they are allowed to have on them, a smartcard, and a smartcard reader.
    </QUOTE>

    The opportunity to get source media is increasingly rare and difficult. For reference and debugging purposes, source code access is provided via network access.

    Tim Roberts on Windows Source Code Access Agreements:

    <QUOTE>
    As a DDK MVP, I was offered the opportunity to gain access to the source code. I seriously considered it, but after reading through the agreement documents, my concerns about contamination, and about what I could say and what I couldn't say, were just enough over the comfort line for me that I turned it down.
    </QUOTE>

    And the agreement has changed every year, most dramatically THIS year. This year it changed dramatically and became MUCH more restrictive and onerous.

    Peter Wieland on KMDF Source Code Access:

    <QUOTE>
    So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on what you'd be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to hear too.
    </QUOTE>

    That's a VERY tough question.

    Depends on whether they want to craft the KMDF source code license based on the standard MSFT Source Code Licensing Agreement or on something much more liberal like the SDK license.

    For KMDF source, there REALLY shouldn't be ANY source code license restrictions required. It's a FRAMEWORK, for goodness sakes. As Bill McKenzie said, what do you sign to get access to MFC sources?

    You need to be able to use the source code for reference, debugging, and for community support. So a strict NDA wouldn't do. I also DO NOT believe a restricton against contributing to another OS would be called for... it's a FRAMEwork, and seeing how KMDF is implemented over WDM doesn't really help you say, write KMDF for Linux.

    It IS probably reasonable for the agreement to include a prohibition against using undocumented KMDF interfaces or features.

    Peter
    OSR

    Peter Viscarola
    OSR
    @OSRDrivers

  • Michal_Vodicka-2Michal_Vodicka-2 Member Posts: 1,612
    Similarly as others, for KMDF I'd prefer the same restrictions as for
    other frameworks i.e. none. However, read-only licence would be also
    acceptable.

    Just for completeness, for Windows sources similar licence as for WinCE,
    would be acceptable, too. With "sensitive" parts removed, too. It is a
    bit riduculous as everyone knows there is no security by obscurity but
    anyway, as I said, CE sources saved a lot of time for me.

    Michal

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: [email protected] [mailto:bounce-289816-
    > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Wieland
    > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:10 PM
    > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    > Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    >
    > So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback
    on
    > what you'd be willing to sign to get source access that would be good
    to
    > hear too.
    >
    > Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to
    MS.
    > I'd personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out
    that
    > there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.
    >
    > At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept
    > them?
    >
    > -p
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: [email protected] [mailto:bounce-289772-
    > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
    > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
    > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    > Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    >
    > Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share.
    I'd
    > emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
    > what happened? Nothing noticeable.
    >
    > MS can't lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
    > necessary power realizes it.
    >
    > Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about
    source
    > code. I'm looking forward for it ;-)
    >
    > Michal
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: [email protected] [mailto:bounce-289760-
    > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
    > > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
    > > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    > > Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
    > >
    > > Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
    > > system:
    > >
    > > <QUOTE>
    > > however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest.
    > > </QUOTE>
    > >
    > > Do you really believe this? I don't and never have.
    > >
    > > I know that Microsoft *believes* it is not in their best interest to
    > > release the Windows OS source code. I don't think they should
    release
    > a
    > > BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it
    would
    > be,
    > > entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the
    Windows
    > OS
    > > widely available.
    > >
    > > Sure... some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
    > Whatever.
    > > Those people get what they deserve.
    > >
    > > Sure... some other jerks will exploit security loopholes... Guess
    > those
    > > loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
    > >
    > > But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
    > code?
    > > Note that there's a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet
    (on
    > > Chinese and Russian sites).
    > >
    > > If I were "King for a Day" at Microsoft, I'd release the OS source
    > code
    > > for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
    > well
    > > written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
    > The
    > > good feelings among the community members.
    > >
    > > And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
    > could
    > > LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
    > for
    > > guidance.
    > >
    > > P
    > >
    > > ---
    > > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    > >
    > > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    > > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Upcoming OSR Seminars
OSR has suspended in-person seminars due to the Covid-19 outbreak. But, don't miss your training! Attend via the internet instead!
Kernel Debugging 13-17 May 2024 Live, Online
Developing Minifilters 1-5 Apr 2024 Live, Online
Internals & Software Drivers 11-15 Mar 2024 Live, Online
Writing WDF Drivers 20-24 May 2024 Live, Online