Re[2]: Re[2]: Inverted Call Model implementation for a minifilter, or a possible alternative?

NTFSD
1

Right, there are 2 parts, the user and the kernel mode parts.

Do not mix KMDF and the Fltr Mgr frameworks, there is no need to.

Pete

–
Kernel Drivers
Windows File System and Device Driver Consulting
www.KernelDrivers.com
866.263.9295

------ Original Message ------
From: xxxxx@yahoo.com
To: “Windows File Systems Devs Interest List”
Sent: 10/31/2016 3:23:24 AM
Subject: RE:[ntfsd] Re[2]: Inverted Call Model implementation for a
minifilter, or a possible alternative?

>Oh! and this FilterReplyMessage is really helpful
>
>—
>NTFSD is sponsored by OSR
>
>
>MONTHLY seminars on crash dump analysis, WDF, Windows internals and
>software drivers!
>Details at http:
>
>To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
>http:</http:></http:>

2

>Do not mix KMDF and the Fltr Mgr frameworks, there is no need to.

ok. Thanks

Right, there are 2 parts, the user and the kernel mode parts.

I am really amazed by how I can’t express myself correctly. English is not my mother language but this is totally disappointing for me.

Where I said,

I just found out about the existence of two user and kernel APIs!
FltSendMessage in kernel
and
FilterGetMessage in user

I just knew half of the communication ports before! That’s why I was asking how
should I pend a message!

I meant I wasn’t aware of FltSendMessage in kernel and FilterGetMessage in user.
But I already knew that filtermgr has kernel and user APIs. I just knew about half of each, which was used in minispy sample.