New windbgkd.h

Hi,

The Windows 2000 DDK had a very useful file called windbgkd.h which
contained the structures used by the KD module inside Windows. Since
this module is made to be portable (you can notice that it has versions
for NT, BLDR, XBOX, Singularity, EXDI, etc…) I’ve been working on
creating my own KD stub. However when enabling verbose output for BD
(the BLDR Debugger in NTLDR), I noticed Packet Types above 8, while in
the windbgkd.h, KD_PACKET_TYPE_MAX is set to 8. Defintely, KD got some
new featues after 2000 and there are new packet types, but the
windbgkd.h file is not included in newer DDKs, so it’s impossible to get
the definition for this new type. Is there a reason for this omission in
the new DDKs, and is there a way to obtain the newest definitions?

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

The kernel debugging protocol is deliberately undocumented as it is an
internal implementation detail for the OS.

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
[397670]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 1:02 PM
To: Kernel Debugging Interest List
Subject: [windbg] New windbgkd.h

Hi,

The Windows 2000 DDK had a very useful file called windbgkd.h which
contained the structures used by the KD module inside Windows. Since
this module is made to be portable (you can notice that it has versions
for NT, BLDR, XBOX, Singularity, EXDI, etc…) I’ve been working on
creating my own KD stub. However when enabling verbose output for BD
(the BLDR Debugger in NTLDR), I noticed Packet Types above 8, while in
the windbgkd.h, KD_PACKET_TYPE_MAX is set to 8. Defintely, KD got some
new featues after 2000 and there are new packet types, but the
windbgkd.h file is not included in newer DDKs, so it’s impossible to get
the definition for this new type. Is there a reason for this omission in
the new DDKs, and is there a way to obtain the newest definitions?

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu


You are currently subscribed to windbg as: xxxxx@winse.microsoft.com To
unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com

Hello Drew,

* On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 07:23:24AM -0800 Drew Bliss wrote:

The kernel debugging protocol is deliberately undocumented as it is an
internal implementation detail for the OS.

You don’t know who Alex is; if you would know him, you would know why he
is asking this. Do you know ReactOS? Have you heard about the “problem”
of ReactOS: “There has been a lot of talk about possible tainted code in
ReactOS.” (http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/de/news_page_14.html).

The thread in the ReactOS mailing list which started all this is at
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2006-January/007386.html;
look especially at
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2006-January/007393.html.

Alex is the one who contributed that offended code.

Now, you can make your conclusions on what Alex is doing here, and why
he is asking about such internal things.

Regards,
Spiro.


Spiro R. Trikaliotis http://cbm4win.sf.net/
http://www.trikaliotis.net/ http://www.viceteam.org/

SPIRO:

Was this really necessary? Ignoring everything else that is wrong with
this, read Alex’s question again. He asked to see if the contents of a
previously public file that is no longer in the DDK could be found in
another public source. Further, he asked a Microsoft sys dev. This is
what you are supposed to do. I do not know Drew, but I bet his is a big
enough boy to handle this one himself. Indeed, he responded that they
are private. End of story.

Note that the original date of the posting was a few days shy of a
month ago, and that the first reply to it was Drew’s, earlier today.
Minimally, this was not exactly a pressing issue. These lists are
invaluable sources of information that is not at all likely to be found
anywhere else, and, as such, they are sometimes vital. In my opnion,
however, it seems that the vast majority of the traffic on these lists
over the past year, has had very little to do with answering questions
directly, and overwhelmingly more to do with petty criticism couched in
some form of a senseless handout of policy which, minimally, (1)(
doesn’t apply to many extant situations that a member of this list might
find himself in; (2) possibly doesn’t apply equally to all; and, in my
opinion, (3) almost certainly, is violated whenever necessary or,
probably, inconvenient, by those who preach it - for example, hooking,
the needs for which do arise more than occasionally, depending on what
one does for a living.

if you’re driven by your conscience, or perhaps, other motives, to rise
up and do the right thing, at least have to the decency to :

  1. Notify the dev privately (and cc the villian). No one else needs,
    nor, more than likely, wants to know. In my opnion, I don’t think the
    dev wants to either; he’s a developer, not a lawyer. The best evidence
    for all of this is, again, the complete lack of traffic.

  2. Not bring in selective portions of unsubstantiated information from
    an unrelated site that is, if you read the entire thread, quite
    debatable under the best of circumstances. That really doesn’t matter,
    as the only invariant in this contrived, silly, conversation is that
    whether or not what Alex did or did not due is legal is defined entirely
    and meaningfully only in a court, at a specific time.

  3. Not try to lead the dev’s opinion by summarizing, naming and
    judging someone based on the tidbits of information from (2) that you
    presented. If you do not feel that a simple note and a reference to the
    first thread will not get you what you want (which appears to have been
    the case), perhaps it isn’t important, or at least important to the
    person to which you write.

One man’s opinion: what you did, while totally inconsequential, other
than that it potentially (although I doubt it in this case) generates
needless traffic, was neither (1) founded in anything remotely
approaching a responsibly held, general opinion, (2) nor fairly or
completely presented; (3) a complete waste of time, (4) and just not
very nice. The last is the reason why I rant.

My apologies to all.

MM

MM

>> xxxxx@trikaliotis.net 2006-03-29 11:06 >>>
Hello Drew,

* On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 07:23:24AM -0800 Drew Bliss wrote:

The kernel debugging protocol is deliberately undocumented as it is
an
internal implementation detail for the OS.

You don’t know who Alex is; if you would know him, you would know why
he
is asking this. Do you know ReactOS? Have you heard about the
“problem”
of ReactOS: “There has been a lot of talk about possible tainted code
in
ReactOS.” (http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/de/news_page_14.html).

The thread in the ReactOS mailing list which started all this is at
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2006-January/007386.html;
look especially at
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2006-January/007393.html.

Alex is the one who contributed that offended code.

Now, you can make your conclusions on what Alex is doing here, and why
he is asking about such internal things.

Regards,
Spiro.


Spiro R. Trikaliotis
http://cbm4win.sf.net/
http://www.trikaliotis.net/
http://www.viceteam.org/


You are currently subscribed to windbg as: xxxxx@evitechnology.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com

Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:

Hello Drew,

* On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 07:23:24AM -0800 Drew Bliss wrote:

>The kernel debugging protocol is deliberately undocumented as it is an
>internal implementation detail for the OS.

You don’t know who Alex is; if you would know him, you would know why he
is asking this. Do you know ReactOS? Have you heard about the “problem”
of ReactOS: “There has been a lot of talk about possible tainted code in
ReactOS.” (http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/de/news_page_14.html).

The thread in the ReactOS mailing list which started all this is at
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2006-January/007386.html;
look especially at
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2006-January/007393.html.

Alex is the one who contributed that offended code.

Now, you can make your conclusions on what Alex is doing here, and why
he is asking about such internal things.

Regards,
Spiro.

You do know this is libel right?

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

Drew Bliss wrote:

The kernel debugging protocol is deliberately undocumented as it is an
internal implementation detail for the OS.

Hi Drew,

I know you’re were on vacation, so sorry to let you know you so late,
I’ve already gotten a reply from Richard Moore on this (same as
yours)… sorry for the duplication, and thanks for your response.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
[397670]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 1:02 PM
To: Kernel Debugging Interest List
Subject: [windbg] New windbgkd.h

Hi,

The Windows 2000 DDK had a very useful file called windbgkd.h which
contained the structures used by the KD module inside Windows. Since
this module is made to be portable (you can notice that it has versions
for NT, BLDR, XBOX, Singularity, EXDI, etc…) I’ve been working on
creating my own KD stub. However when enabling verbose output for BD
(the BLDR Debugger in NTLDR), I noticed Packet Types above 8, while in
the windbgkd.h, KD_PACKET_TYPE_MAX is set to 8. Defintely, KD got some
new featues after 2000 and there are new packet types, but the
windbgkd.h file is not included in newer DDKs, so it’s impossible to get
the definition for this new type. Is there a reason for this omission in
the new DDKs, and is there a way to obtain the newest definitions?

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu


You are currently subscribed to windbg as: xxxxx@winse.microsoft.com To
unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com