Hi,
My driver has memory leaks.
I’ve followed the steps mentioned in the “Profiling UMDF Drivers” thread in order to trace their origin.
I’ve tried loading the WudfExt.dll and using the dumpobjects extension and the output I got is:
kd> !dumpobjects 00694098
GetFieldValue for Flink failed, RetVal = 1
What could be causing this?
The relevant parts of WinDbg’s output appear below.
Thanks,
Gadi
**** WUDF DriverStop - Internal error 0x500000000000000
**** in Host
**** d:\vistartm\drivers\wdf\umdf\driverhost\framework\wudf\wudf.cpp:429(CWUDF::Uninitialize):
Leaking WDF objects, use !wudfext.dumpobjects 00694098 to find the leaks
Break instruction exception - code 80000003 (first chance)
*******************************************************************************
* *
* You are seeing this message because you pressed either *
* CTRL+C (if you run kd.exe) or, *
* CTRL+BREAK (if you run WinDBG), *
* on your debugger machine’s keyboard. *
* *
* THIS IS NOT A BUG OR A SYSTEM CRASH *
* *
* If you did not intend to break into the debugger, press the “g” key, then *
* press the “Enter” key now. This message might immediately reappear. If it *
* does, press “g” and “Enter” again. *
* *
*******************************************************************************
nt!RtlpBreakWithStatusInstruction:
81c818d0 cc int 3
kd> !load C:\WinDDK\6000\bin\x86\WudfExt.dll
kd> !wudfext.dumpobjects 00694098
The call to LoadLibrary(wudfext) failed, Win32 error 2
“The system cannot find the file specified.”
Please check your debugger configuration and/or network access.
kd> !dumpobjects 00694098
GetFieldValue for Flink failed, RetVal = 1
Are you sure that the symbols for UMDF are correct and loaded properly?
d
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@n-trig.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:44 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
Hi,
My driver has memory leaks.
I’ve followed the steps mentioned in the “Profiling UMDF Drivers” thread in order to trace their origin.
I’ve tried loading the WudfExt.dll and using the dumpobjects extension and the output I got is:
kd> !dumpobjects 00694098
GetFieldValue for Flink failed, RetVal = 1
What could be causing this?
The relevant parts of WinDbg’s output appear below.
Thanks,
Gadi
**** WUDF DriverStop - Internal error 0x500000000000000
**** in Host
**** d:\vistartm\drivers\wdf\umdf\driverhost\framework\wudf\wudf.cpp:429(CWUDF::Uninitialize):
Leaking WDF objects, use !wudfext.dumpobjects 00694098 to find the leaks
Break instruction exception - code 80000003 (first chance)
*******************************************************************************
* *
* You are seeing this message because you pressed either *
* CTRL+C (if you run kd.exe) or, *
* CTRL+BREAK (if you run WinDBG), *
* on your debugger machine’s keyboard. *
* *
* THIS IS NOT A BUG OR A SYSTEM CRASH *
* *
* If you did not intend to break into the debugger, press the “g” key, then *
* press the “Enter” key now. This message might immediately reappear. If it *
* does, press “g” and “Enter” again. *
* *
*******************************************************************************
nt!RtlpBreakWithStatusInstruction:
81c818d0 cc int 3
kd> !load C:\WinDDK\6000\bin\x86\WudfExt.dll
kd> !wudfext.dumpobjects 00694098
The call to LoadLibrary(wudfext) failed, Win32 error 2
“The system cannot find the file specified.”
Please check your debugger configuration and/or network access.
kd> !dumpobjects 00694098
GetFieldValue for Flink failed, RetVal = 1
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
I believe they are.
This is my symbol path:
SRV*c:\websymbols*http://msdl.microsoft.com/download/symbols;C:\WinDDK\6000\src\umdf\usb\DtrigBulk_driver\final\objchk_wlh_x86\i386; C:\WinDDK\6000\bin\x86
I do:
.lines -e
.reload /user
and I’m able to put breakpoints. So I think the symbols are ok.
Thanks,
Gadi
What does the .chain command tell you? (it lists each extension loaded, along with its path and also the dbghelp dll path and API version)
kd> .chain
Extension DLL search Path:
C:\Program Files\Debugging Tools for Windows\winext;C:\Program Files\Debugging Tools for Windows\winext\arcade;C:\Program Files\Debugging Tools for Windows\WINXP;C:\Program Files\Debugging Tools for Windows\pri;C:\Program Files\Debugging Tools for Windows;C:\Program Files\Debugging Tools for Windows\winext\arcade;C:\DXSDK\Utilities\Bin\x86;C:\WINDOWS\system32;C:\WINDOWS;C:\WINDOWS\System32\Wbem;C:\Program Files\Microsoft Driver Test Manager\Controller;C:\Program Files\Common Files\GTK\2.0\bin;C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\binn;C:\Program Files\QuickTime\QTSystem;C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\Common\Tools\WinNT;C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\Common\MSDev98\Bin;C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\Common\Tools;C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\VC98\bin
Extension DLL chain:
C:\WINDOWS\system32\wudfx: image 6.0.6000.16386, built Thu Nov 02 11:44:41 2006
[path: C:\WINDOWS\system32\wudfx.dll]
C:\WinDDK\6000\bin\x86\wudfext: image 6.0.6000.16386, API 1.0.0, built Thu Nov 02 10:54:53 2006
[path: C:\WinDDK\6000\bin\x86\WudfExt.dll]
C:\WinDDK\6000\bin\x86\WudfExt.dll: image 6.0.6000.16386, API 1.0.0, built Thu Nov 02 10:54:53 2006
[path: C:\WinDDK\6000\bin\x86\WudfExt.dll]
dbghelp: image 6.6.0007.5, API 6.0.6, built Sat Jul 08 23:11:32 2006
[path: C:\Program Files\Debugging Tools for Windows\dbghelp.dll]
ext: image 6.6.0007.5, API 1.0.0, built Sat Jul 08 23:10:52 2006
[path: C:\Program Files\Debugging Tools for Windows\winext\ext.dll]
exts: image 6.6.0007.5, API 1.0.0, built Sat Jul 08 23:10:48 2006
[path: C:\Program Files\Debugging Tools for Windows\WINXP\exts.dll]
kext: image 6.6.0007.5, API 1.0.0, built Sat Jul 08 23:11:01 2006
[path: C:\Program Files\Debugging Tools for Windows\winext\kext.dll]
kdexts: image 6.0.5457.0, API 1.0.0, built Sat Jul 08 23:31:08 2006
[path: C:\Program Files\Debugging Tools for Windows\WINXP\kdexts.dll]
Well, Gadi, I have good news and bad news.
The good news is that your setup looks fine.
The bad news is that it appears we have shipped a broken debugger extension [unless its that I can’t read source code, and I’d be really happy for that to turn out to be true].
In my early days at IBM, we had an earthy but pithy saying- “one ‘aww, s***’ wipes out all of your ‘attaboys’”. Since I was gloating about not being slackers an hour or so ago, I now get to be a total a**. C’est la vie.
We’ll have to figure out what we do about fixing it and when.
Thanks for reporting it. At least we now know it needs fixing…
I’ll see if there is some sort of workaround available, also.
>>Well, Gadi, I have good news and bad news.
(then setting a new record for number of times I can be wrong in one day on this list)
Bad debugger documentation- probably should have seen that one coming…
The extension is OK (docs for GetFieldValue were wrong about the return code and its meaning), and we use it frequently (allaying my misgivings about somehow shipping something utterly untested- my worst nightmare).
The error message seems to mean that the symbols for UMDF are missing the type information the extension needs- still not good, but we might be able to solve that one- if not 1.7 release isn’t far away.
Do you have the latest 6001 WDK (RC1) available? I’m told it should have symbols that will work (but you will need to install UMDF 1.7- fortunately the coinstallers in these latest WDKs are fully functional, so this can actually be done).
Still checking about other potential workarounds…
Also, we haven’t acutally verified you even have UMDF symbols-
what does “lmv mwudfhost*” report?
start end module name
00500000 00526000 WUDFHost (pdb symbols) c:\websymbols\WUDFHost.pdb\191D6104E243494D9DC967CD36CB0A4B1\WUDFHost.pdb
Loaded symbol image file: WUDFHost.exe
Image path: C:\Windows\system32\WUDFHost.exe
Image name: WUDFHost.exe
Timestamp: Thu Nov 02 10:54:37 2006 (4549B24D)
CheckSum: 00028DD6
ImageSize: 00026000
Translations: 0000.04b0 0000.04e0 0409.04b0 0409.04e0
Unable to enumerate user-mode unloaded modules, Win32 error 30
I don’t understand what you meant with the beta coinstallers.
I’ve tried compiling the driver with the 6001 version, both checked and release.
In the WDK beta installation I could only find coinstallers located in the C:\WinDDK\6001\redist folder, which I understand (according to previous posts) is suitable for Checked OS only. I could not find any release coinstallers.
I installed the driver but it failed to start.
I also understand from other posts that the beta is only suitable for Vista+1 or Server 2008.
I have a common version of Vista.
Also, loading the WUDFExt.dll from the 6001 version didn’t help resolve the lost symbols.
So, if the workaround is possible, please tell me exactly how to do it.
With which version should I compile it? 6000 or 6001?
Checked or Release?
Where should I take the coinstallers from? (if from some reason they are missing in the version I’ve downloaded (from October 2007), is there a website I can download them from?)
Should I load the WUDFext.dll from 6001?
What paths should be in the WinDBG’s Symbol File Path, Source File Path and Image File Path?
Thanks,
Gadi
Sorry for the delayed response- I was OOF (illness) and I could only see the latest 50 or so posts via my web client yesterday, so your replies weren’t visible (should have checked the online list, I suppose).
It looks like the public symbols for UMDF 1.5 have insufficient type information for the extension to work. We’re in the middle of trying to understand (1) if that is indeed the case, and then (2) how THAT happened without being noticed.
The 6001 Beta WDKs (beginning with the RC1 version released in early December 2007) have fully functioning KMDF and UMDF coinstallers, so you can test 1.7 drivers on any supported platform. As Ilias and I noted in our blogs, there are some wrinkles (KMDF IA64 checked and free are “backwards”- checked coinstaller installs free and vice versa, UMDF coinstaller doesn’t work on Server 2008 Vista SP1) and we posted workarounds for all of those wrinkles (I covered KMDF in my blog, Ilias covered UMDF in his, we’ve cross-linked).
Since we still have the unstripped (private) symbols available internally, it should be possible to fix the public symbols IF THEY ARE BROKEN (but it sure looks that way, we have reproduced your problem, but need to inspect the symbol files themselves). But all of that may take a while- so using the 1.7 beta should be a reasonable workaround.
If it is not, then we have a bigger problem, but this particular fire drill is just getting underway, and I got ahead of myself once already on this thread…
BTW, the redist folder is where the coinstallers are supposed to be. Those with the _Chk in their name are the checked versios, those without are the retail versions.
> ----------
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com[SMTP:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] on behalf of xxxxx@microsoft.com[SMTP:xxxxx@microsoft.com]
Reply To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:38 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
BTW, the redist folder is where the coinstallers are supposed to be. Those with the _Chk in their name are the checked versios, those without are the retail versions.
Sorry for beeing OT but there is something I’d like to know. I’ve read somewhere in the docs or release notes that checked version can be only installed at checked build and free only at free build. Is it right and if so, what is the reasoning behind it? I guess checked versions are used mainly by developers and for them makes perfect sense to run checked build of selected components at free OS. Using full checked OS is pure masochism, even if somebody manages to install it (the only case I succeeded was NT4). It should be possible to use partial checked build (kernel + HAL) but it still seems quite superfluous for UMDF development.
Best regards,
Michal Vodicka
UPEK, Inc.
[xxxxx@upek.com, http://www.upek.com]
It’s true for both UMDF and KMDF. The installer that we (are forced to) use doesn’t allow us to mix checked and free bits.
However there is very little difference between the checked and free versions of UMDF. All of our runtime checks are in place in either build. So you should be able to use a free system and free UMDF without missing out on anything.
-p
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:28 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com[SMTP:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] on behalf of xxxxx@microsoft.com[SMTP:xxxxx@microsoft.com]
Reply To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:38 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
BTW, the redist folder is where the coinstallers are supposed to be. Those with the _Chk in their name are the checked versios, those without are the retail versions.
Sorry for beeing OT but there is something I’d like to know. I’ve read somewhere in the docs or release notes that checked version can be only installed at checked build and free only at free build. Is it right and if so, what is the reasoning behind it? I guess checked versions are used mainly by developers and for them makes perfect sense to run checked build of selected components at free OS. Using full checked OS is pure masochism, even if somebody manages to install it (the only case I succeeded was NT4). It should be possible to use partial checked build (kernel + HAL) but it still seems quite superfluous for UMDF development.
Best regards,
Michal Vodicka
UPEK, Inc.
[xxxxx@upek.com, http://www.upek.com]
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
OK, thanks. So why is there checked version, anyway?
Best regards,
Michal Vodicka
UPEK, Inc.
[xxxxx@upek.com, http://www.upek.com]
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com[SMTP:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] on behalf of Peter Wieland[SMTP:xxxxx@windows.microsoft.com]
Reply To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:51 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
It’s true for both UMDF and KMDF. The installer that we (are forced to) use doesn’t allow us to mix checked and free bits.
However there is very little difference between the checked and free versions of UMDF. All of our runtime checks are in place in either build. So you should be able to use a free system and free UMDF without missing out on anything.
-p
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:28 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
> ----------
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com[SMTP:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] on behalf of xxxxx@microsoft.com[SMTP:xxxxx@microsoft.com]
> Reply To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:38 PM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
>
> BTW, the redist folder is where the coinstallers are supposed to be. Those with the _Chk in their name are the checked versios, those without are the retail versions.
>
Sorry for beeing OT but there is something I’d like to know. I’ve read somewhere in the docs or release notes that checked version can be only installed at checked build and free only at free build. Is it right and if so, what is the reasoning behind it? I guess checked versions are used mainly by developers and for them makes perfect sense to run checked build of selected components at free OS. Using full checked OS is pure masochism, even if somebody manages to install it (the only case I succeeded was NT4). It should be possible to use partial checked build (kernel + HAL) but it still seems quite superfluous for UMDF development.
Best regards,
Michal Vodicka
UPEK, Inc.
[xxxxx@upek.com, http://www.upek.com]
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
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
This matching is required by the update technology we use, which originated in Windows Update. It happens to not be true in Vista and up, BTW [some technologies get better, perhaps?].
But prior to the upcoming 1.7 WDF release that would be moot.
If you want to use checked framework on a free OS [or vice versa], I have a blog entry that tells how to disassemble the coinstaller and extract the binaries as needed [just don’t do it in shipping product, please]. Pre-Vista, there’s no SFP to worry about, and on Vista and later [applies to KMDF 1.7 and up], the restriction between checked and free won’t exist.
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:28 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com[SMTP:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] on behalf of xxxxx@microsoft.com[SMTP:xxxxx@microsoft.com]
Reply To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:38 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
BTW, the redist folder is where the coinstallers are supposed to be. Those with the _Chk in their name are the checked versios, those without are the retail versions.
Sorry for beeing OT but there is something I’d like to know. I’ve read somewhere in the docs or release notes that checked version can be only installed at checked build and free only at free build. Is it right and if so, what is the reasoning behind it? I guess checked versions are used mainly by developers and for them makes perfect sense to run checked build of selected components at free OS. Using full checked OS is pure masochism, even if somebody manages to install it (the only case I succeeded was NT4). It should be possible to use partial checked build (kernel + HAL) but it still seems quite superfluous for UMDF development.
Best regards,
Michal Vodicka
UPEK, Inc.
[xxxxx@upek.com, http://www.upek.com]
Great, thanks. Don’t worry, we don’t plan to ship anything based on UMDF in the near future 
Best regards,
Michal Vodicka
UPEK, Inc.
[xxxxx@upek.com, http://www.upek.com]
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com[SMTP:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] on behalf of Bob Kjelgaard[SMTP:xxxxx@microsoft.com]
Reply To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:58 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
This matching is required by the update technology we use, which originated in Windows Update. It happens to not be true in Vista and up, BTW [some technologies get better, perhaps?].
But prior to the upcoming 1.7 WDF release that would be moot.
If you want to use checked framework on a free OS [or vice versa], I have a blog entry that tells how to disassemble the coinstaller and extract the binaries as needed [just don’t do it in shipping product, please]. Pre-Vista, there’s no SFP to worry about, and on Vista and later [applies to KMDF 1.7 and up], the restriction between checked and free won’t exist.
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:28 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
> ----------
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com[SMTP:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] on behalf of xxxxx@microsoft.com[SMTP:xxxxx@microsoft.com]
> Reply To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:38 PM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
>
> BTW, the redist folder is where the coinstallers are supposed to be. Those with the _Chk in their name are the checked versios, those without are the retail versions.
>
Sorry for beeing OT but there is something I’d like to know. I’ve read somewhere in the docs or release notes that checked version can be only installed at checked build and free only at free build. Is it right and if so, what is the reasoning behind it? I guess checked versions are used mainly by developers and for them makes perfect sense to run checked build of selected components at free OS. Using full checked OS is pure masochism, even if somebody manages to install it (the only case I succeeded was NT4). It should be possible to use partial checked build (kernel + HAL) but it still seems quite superfluous for UMDF development.
Best regards,
Michal Vodicka
UPEK, Inc.
[xxxxx@upek.com, http://www.upek.com]
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
Ah, dumb question. Never mind.
Best regards,
Michal Vodicka
UPEK, Inc.
[xxxxx@upek.com, http://www.upek.com]
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com[SMTP:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] on behalf of Michal Vodicka[SMTP:xxxxx@upek.com]
Reply To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:56 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
OK, thanks. So why is there checked version, anyway?
Best regards,
Michal Vodicka
UPEK, Inc.
[xxxxx@upek.com, http://www.upek.com]
> ----------
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com[SMTP:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] on behalf of Peter Wieland[SMTP:xxxxx@windows.microsoft.com]
> Reply To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:51 PM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE: [ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
>
> It’s true for both UMDF and KMDF. The installer that we (are forced to) use doesn’t allow us to mix checked and free bits.
>
> However there is very little difference between the checked and free versions of UMDF. All of our runtime checks are in place in either build. So you should be able to use a free system and free UMDF without missing out on anything.
>
> -p
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:28 PM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE: [ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
>
> > ----------
> > From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com[SMTP:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] on behalf of xxxxx@microsoft.com[SMTP:xxxxx@microsoft.com]
> > Reply To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:38 PM
> > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> > Subject: RE:[ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
> >
> > BTW, the redist folder is where the coinstallers are supposed to be. Those with the _Chk in their name are the checked versios, those without are the retail versions.
> >
> Sorry for beeing OT but there is something I’d like to know. I’ve read somewhere in the docs or release notes that checked version can be only installed at checked build and free only at free build. Is it right and if so, what is the reasoning behind it? I guess checked versions are used mainly by developers and for them makes perfect sense to run checked build of selected components at free OS. Using full checked OS is pure masochism, even if somebody manages to install it (the only case I succeeded was NT4). It should be possible to use partial checked build (kernel + HAL) but it still seems quite superfluous for UMDF development.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michal Vodicka
> UPEK, Inc.
> [xxxxx@upek.com, http://www.upek.com]
>
>
>
>
> —
> 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
>
>
> —
> 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
>
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
Bob,
Thanks for the reply.
I’ve begun downloading the latest RC1 beta.
I had an earlier version from October.
I hope the reason it didn’t work got fixed in the new version.
Because of the time differences, you will see this reply tomorrow morning and I will see yours on the morning after.
So in order to avoid more misunderstandings with the new version I’m downloading now and using it, I would be thankful if you could answer all of the following questions, one by one:
I use the original version of Vista (no SP1). Will it be able to install the driver complied with 6001 and the 1007 coinstallers?
I plan to use it on a vista 32-bit. Are the UMDF coinstallers in place or was there a “wrinkle” and some of the release coinstallers are not in place? If so, where exactly are they?
With which version should I compile it? 6000 or 6001?
Checked or Release?
Should I load the WUDFext.dll from 6001?
What paths should be in the WinDBG’s Symbol File Path, Source File Path and
Image File Path?
Thanks,
Gadi
Gadi,
The issue that you saw was because of some UMDF 1.5 symbols that were not available from Microsoft’s symbol server. However, this has been fixed for UMDF 1.7. I installed both WDKs (1.5 and 1.7 RC1) and verified that the issue is fixed. You’ll see that the 1.7 RC1 version has a lot of fixes.
Regarding your questions:
- Yes, Vista RTM (and SP1) will be able to install UMDF 1.7 using the 01007 coinstallers. Actually, the 1.7 coinstallers have been updated quite a bit and a lot of issues were fixed. You’ll find it much easier to work with them.
- Since you’re using 32-bit coinstallers, you won’t see any issues. The ia64 RC1 coinstallers have a couple of issues, however they don’t affect you. Also, these issues have been identified and will be fixed for RTM. If you need more information, please look at http://blogs.msdn.com/iliast/archive/2007/12/13/wdf-1-7-rc1-has-been-released.aspx and http://blogs.msdn.com/bobkjelgaard/archive/2007/12/13/kmdf-1-7-and-the-server-2008-vista-sp1-rc1-wdk.aspx)
- Compile your driver with version 6001 and use everything (e.g. debugger extensions, etc from 6001).
- Release versions.
- Yes, load WudfExt.dll from 6001 (and everything else from 6001… you can even delete 6000, if you want to save space). Make sure that your infs are correct and that they use 1.7 instead of 1.5. You can try and experimenting with one of the sample drivers first to make sure that everything is working.
- Let’s say that you want to debug the UMDF 1.7 echo driver. The paths should be (please modify according to your needs):
a) Symbol path: SRV*DownstreamStore*http://msdl.microsoft.com/download/symbols; C:\WinDDK\6001\src\umdf\echo\objfre_wlh_x86\i386 (make sure to modify DownstreamStore and objfre_wlh_x86 according to your needs)
b) Source path: C:\WinDDK\6001\src\umdf\echo
c) Image path: none needed
Also, I suggest that inside windbg you do .extpath+ C:\WinDDK\6001\bin\x86
This will allow you to do
!load wudfext
And then do !wudfext.<wudf_command>
Otherwise, you’d have to do
!load C:\WinDDK\6001\bin\x86\wudfext.dll
And !C:\WinDDK\6001\bin\x86\wudfext.dll.<wudf_command>
Of course, regardless of whether you change extpath or not, you can always do directly !<wudf_command>
Hope that this helps,
Ilias
________________________________________
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@n-trig.com [xxxxx@n-trig.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:56 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] Issues with UMDF extensions
Bob,
Thanks for the reply.
I’ve begun downloading the latest RC1 beta.
I had an earlier version from October.
I hope the reason it didn’t work got fixed in the new version.
Because of the time differences, you will see this reply tomorrow morning and I will see yours on the morning after.
So in order to avoid more misunderstandings with the new version I’m downloading now and using it, I would be thankful if you could answer all of the following questions, one by one:
I use the original version of Vista (no SP1). Will it be able to install the driver complied with 6001 and the 1007 coinstallers?
I plan to use it on a vista 32-bit. Are the UMDF coinstallers in place or was there a “wrinkle” and some of the release coinstallers are not in place? If so, where exactly are they?
With which version should I compile it? 6000 or 6001?
Checked or Release?
Should I load the WUDFext.dll from 6001?
What paths should be in the WinDBG’s Symbol File Path, Source File Path and
Image File Path?
Thanks,
Gadi
—
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</wudf_command></wudf_command></wudf_command>