From: Obble Smith NCH [mailto:xxxxx@nchsoftware.com]
> While I am on this thread, are there any other tools / utilities like
verifier.exe I should be aware of but >> not no idea it exists?
Runtime
Consider the checked build of the OS
Compile time
Use /W4 when compiling
Use PreFast
Use Static Driver Verifier, while some people do not like it, it
can find things
PC-Lint
For a good overview in my opinion (of course I am biased) check out the
paper http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/foundation/drvdev_intro.mspx
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Thank you very much Don.
I will look into these. (after I have finished fixing my driver from
verifier.exe )
Cheers
Obble.
On 3/08/2010 9:21 AM, Don Burn wrote:
From: Obble Smith NCH [mailto:xxxxx@nchsoftware.com]
>> While I am on this thread, are there any other tools / utilities like
>>
verifier.exe I should be aware of but>> not no idea it exists?
Runtime
Consider the checked build of the OS
Compile time
Use /W4 when compiling
Use PreFast
Use Static Driver Verifier, while some people do not like it, it
can find things
PC-Lint
For a good overview in my opinion (of course I am biased) check out the
paper http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/foundation/drvdev_intro.mspx
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
See below.
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Obble Smith NCH
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 7:16 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re: [ntdev] How to create an Usermode event handle in kernel
Ah, thats a good idea. I thought Joe meant the kernel calling code in the
usermode code.
but then is this is what Joe (2 messages back) meant by:
Read some of the historical threads about inverted calls. Sounds like you
are trying to re-invent an idea which has already been shown to be wrong.
If an “inverted call” is the approved way, what is “shown to be wrong” with
inverted called?
No, the discussion centered around the notion that creating user-visible
handles in the kernel, or being passed handle objects that will be signaled,
is a Really Bad Idea. The discussion of “inverted call” talks about what it
is (holding IRPs pending, as already explained) and why this is superior in
every imaginable way to trying to signal user-level objects. I don’t want
to have to try to reproduce the detailed discussion, so I referred you to
the thread.
While I am on this thread, are there any other tools / utilities like
verifier.exe I should be aware of but not no idea it exists?
On 3/08/2010 9:01 AM, Tim Roberts wrote:
Obble Smith NCH wrote:
I am not trying to implement an inverted call, I remember reading that
it is not allowed.
You misunderstood. “Inverted call” is the APPROVED mechanism for making
a callback from a driver to a user-mode app. It’s done by sending an
IRP that remains pending until the driver has something to say.
NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by http:</http:> MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.