Using Call Usage Verifier

Lazlo_Elteto · March 26, 2009, 3:49am

Hi list,

Machine config: Windows XP SP 2, DDK 6001.18002

Plz Refer link http://www.osronline.com/ddkx/ddtools/cuv_9kkz.htm It states that “The CUV library file (ddk_ext.lib) is added to the list of libraries to which the driver links”

But i could not find ddk_ext.lib in DDK version 6001.18002.

Here is what i tried

remove DRIVERTYPE flag from source file
set VERIFIER_DDK_EXTENSIONS=1 in DDK build environment
Set the Driver verifier ON

But i donot see any sign’s that CUV is activated. Reason: Driver pdb, .sys size does not vary irrepective of adding/removing CUV

How to

Attach CUV with driver? Am i missing something?
Will the driver size vary after attaching CUV , so that we can be sure that it is attached?
where to find ddk_ext.lib?

Lazlo

Doron_Holan · March 26, 2009, 7:39am

CUV lived for a very short time, it was removed for the vista wdk (6000).

d

Sent from my phone with no t9, all spilling mistakes are not intentional.

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:50 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Using Call Usage Verifier

Hi list,

Machine config: Windows XP SP 2, DDK 6001.18002

Plz Refer link http://www.osronline.com/ddkx/ddtools/cuv_9kkz.htm It states that “The CUV library file (ddk_ext.lib) is added to the list of libraries to which the driver links”

But i could not find ddk_ext.lib in DDK version 6001.18002.

Here is what i tried
- remove DRIVERTYPE flag from source file
- set VERIFIER_DDK_EXTENSIONS=1 in DDK build environment
- Set the Driver verifier ON

But i donot see any sign’s that CUV is activated. Reason: Driver pdb, .sys size does not vary irrepective of adding/removing CUV

How to
- Attach CUV with driver? Am i missing something?
- Will the driver size vary after attaching CUV , so that we can be sure that it is attached?
- where to find ddk_ext.lib?

Lazlo

—
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

Lazlo_Elteto · March 26, 2009, 7:42am

Thanks Doron,

Is there any alternative tool for the same?

Lazlo

Don_Burn_1 · March 26, 2009, 7:48am

Actually there is no equivalent, they put a small number of the checks in
Driver Verifier and the rest are gone.

–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr

wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Thanks Doron,
>
> Is there any alternative tool for the same?
>
> Lazlo
>
>
> Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3965 (20090326)
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3965 (20090326)

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

OSR_Community_User · March 26, 2009, 8:02am

Was CUV an OSR original or am I thinking of another tool. I recall some
discussion about a tool OSR created being dropped from the WDK, and talk of
it being re-included. I’m pretty sure it was CUV, any clarification on my
‘stoned’ memory would be appreciated.

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:48 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] Using Call Usage Verifier

Actually there is no equivalent, they put a small number of the checks in
Driver Verifier and the rest are gone.

–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr

wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Thanks Doron,
>
> Is there any alternative tool for the same?
>
> Lazlo
>
>
> Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3965 (20090326)
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3965 (20090326)

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.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

Don_Burn_1 · March 26, 2009, 8:09am

CUV was from OSR, and I believe was based on the “OSR DDK” tool from many
years ago. Unfortunately, between dropping CUV and the various changes to
the check build from dumbing down messages and ASSERT’s to the later OS’es
where we do not get the messages and ASSERT’s (that is rumored to be being
fixed to some degree). Microsoft has taken away a number of tools that
helped find problems early, at the same time they keep blaming 3rd party
drivers for most of the crashes. While it is true that the majority of the
crashes where the problem is identified do come from 3rd party drivers, the
last I knew only about half the crashes can be identified.

–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr

“Matt” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Was CUV an OSR original or am I thinking of another tool. I recall some
> discussion about a tool OSR created being dropped from the WDK, and talk
> of
> it being re-included. I’m pretty sure it was CUV, any clarification on my
> ‘stoned’ memory would be appreciated.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:48 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] Using Call Usage Verifier
>
> Actually there is no equivalent, they put a small number of the checks in
> Driver Verifier and the rest are gone.
>
>
> –
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
> Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
>
>
>
> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Thanks Doron,
>>
>> Is there any alternative tool for the same?
>>
>> Lazlo
>>
>>
>> Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 3965 (20090326)
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> database 3965 (20090326)
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.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
>
>
>
> Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3965 (20090326)
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3965 (20090326)

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Lazlo_Elteto · March 26, 2009, 8:16am

Are there good tools available for static analysis of kernel drivers? How about PreFast?
-lazlo

OSR_Community_User · March 26, 2009, 8:17am

Okay, thanks Don.

I do seem to recall a thread regarding this tool where someone from OSR
mentioned licensing issues. I
also seem to remember them stating that this tool would be back in newer
versions of the WDK.

OSR folks, what’s up?

Microsoft folks, where is this tool?

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:09 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] Using Call Usage Verifier

CUV was from OSR, and I believe was based on the “OSR DDK” tool from many
years ago. Unfortunately, between dropping CUV and the various changes to
the check build from dumbing down messages and ASSERT’s to the later OS’es
where we do not get the messages and ASSERT’s (that is rumored to be being
fixed to some degree). Microsoft has taken away a number of tools that
helped find problems early, at the same time they keep blaming 3rd party
drivers for most of the crashes. While it is true that the majority of the
crashes where the problem is identified do come from 3rd party drivers, the
last I knew only about half the crashes can be identified.

–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr

“Matt” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Was CUV an OSR original or am I thinking of another tool. I recall some
> discussion about a tool OSR created being dropped from the WDK, and talk
> of
> it being re-included. I’m pretty sure it was CUV, any clarification on my
> ‘stoned’ memory would be appreciated.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:48 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] Using Call Usage Verifier
>
> Actually there is no equivalent, they put a small number of the checks in
> Driver Verifier and the rest are gone.
>
>
> –
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
> Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
>
>
>
> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Thanks Doron,
>>
>> Is there any alternative tool for the same?
>>
>> Lazlo
>>
>>
>> Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 3965 (20090326)
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> database 3965 (20090326)
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.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
>
>
>
> Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3965 (20090326)
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3965 (20090326)

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.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

OSR_Community_User · March 26, 2009, 8:22am

Static Driver Verifier (SDV) and PreFast are both very good, those with
driver verifier and windbg should be sufficient.

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of
xxxxx@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:17 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] Using Call Usage Verifier

Are there good tools available for static analysis of kernel drivers? How
about PreFast?
-lazlo

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

Don_Burn_1 · March 26, 2009, 8:32am

I would add to the list of static tools PC-Lint (http://www.gimpel.com/).
PC-Lint finds a number of problems that PreFast does not. On the runtime
side add Bullseye’s code coverage tool (http://www.bullseye.com/) it is
very nice to know what portions of the code you have excised in a driver.

–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr

“Matt” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Static Driver Verifier (SDV) and PreFast are both very good, those with
> driver verifier and windbg should be sufficient.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of
> xxxxx@gmail.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:17 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] Using Call Usage Verifier
>
> Are there good tools available for static analysis of kernel drivers? How
> about PreFast?
> -lazlo
>
> —
> 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
>
>
>
> Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3965 (20090326)
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3965 (20090326)

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Lazlo_Elteto · March 26, 2009, 8:34am

I tried SDV, it takes lot of time, and most of the cases, it just timeout’s ( i also tried increasing time and space)

For large drivers source code, i was not able to run even a single test successfully.

Prefast, still got good results…
Lazlo

Tim_Roberts · March 26, 2009, 9:21am

xxxxx@gmail.com wrote:

I tried SDV, it takes lot of time, and most of the cases, it just timeout’s ( i also tried increasing time and space)

For large drivers source code, i was not able to run even a single test successfully.

Your experience is not unique. Virtually all of my drivers are in C++,
so SDV is not currently an option for me, either.

However, for the people who are able to make it work, it’s pretty
freakin’ magic. I have a fair amount of compiler experience in my past,
and I have to take my hat off to the SDV team.

–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

Don_Burn_1 · March 26, 2009, 9:29am

Like Tim, I have not been able to get SDV to work. In my case it is because
I use the “static” widely though out my drivers and unfortunately that used
to cause SDV to go beserk. It is my understanding that they are fixing
that one for the Windows 7 RC WDK and I am looking forward to using the
tool. I know of people who have used the tool with great success. I
appreciate the efforts of the SDV team, and I recommend if you have specific
problems that are causing you to not be able to use the tool let them know
and why it is important, that is how “static” got fixed.

–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr

“Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> xxxxx@gmail.com wrote:
>> I tried SDV, it takes lot of time, and most of the cases, it just
>> timeout’s ( i also tried increasing time and space)
>>
>> For large drivers source code, i was not able to run even a single test
>> successfully.
>>
>
> Your experience is not unique. Virtually all of my drivers are in C++,
> so SDV is not currently an option for me, either.
>
> However, for the people who are able to make it work, it’s pretty
> freakin’ magic. I have a fair amount of compiler experience in my past,
> and I have to take my hat off to the SDV team.
>
> –
> Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>
>
> Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3965 (20090326)
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3965 (20090326)

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Chris_Aseltine · March 26, 2009, 10:15am

Don Burn wrote:

Like Tim, I have not been able to get SDV to work. In my case it is
because I use the “static” widely though out my drivers and
unfortunately that used to cause SDV to go beserk.

How are you using ‘static’ that causes SDV to go berserk? Static function-scope variables, static file-scope variables or methods, or what? Why does it cause a problem?

Don_Burn_1 · March 26, 2009, 10:35am

Chris,

The limitations in the WDK say you cannot use it for driver dispatch
functions, but that is too narrow. I have had the current SDV go nuts on a
simple declaration of the form:

static UNICODE_STRING Size = RTL_CONSTANT_STRING(L"Size");

This was confirmed by the SDV team as being one of there’s. My only
solution has been to define on one project STATIC to be static but turn it
to nothing for SDV.

–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr

wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Don Burn wrote:
>
>> Like Tim, I have not been able to get SDV to work. In my case it is
>> because I use the “static” widely though out my drivers and
>> unfortunately that used to cause SDV to go beserk.
>
> How are you using ‘static’ that causes SDV to go berserk? Static
> function-scope variables, static file-scope variables or methods, or what?
> Why does it cause a problem?
>
>
> Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3965 (20090326)
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3965 (20090326)

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Mark_Roddy · March 27, 2009, 11:27am

Oh well if you have actually had SDV work for you and find a bug that
you could actually identify and repair I’d be fascinated to hear about
it.

When I could actually get it to run it never found anything.

Mark Roddy

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Matt wrote:
> Static Driver Verifier (SDV) and PreFast are both very good, those with
> driver verifier and windbg should be sufficient.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of
> xxxxx@gmail.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:17 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] Using Call Usage Verifier
>
> Are there good tools available for static analysis of kernel drivers? How
> about PreFast?
> -lazlo
>
> —
> 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
>

OSR_Community_User · March 30, 2009, 6:21am

“Oh well if you have actually had SDV work for you and find a bug that
you could actually identify and repair I’d be fascinated to hear about
it.”

“When I could actually get it to run it never found anything.”

Given that logic, I shouldn’t use pre-fast since it usually returns
false positives. Same with pc-lint… Given one of the current threads,
DV blows up on legal code (as an added feature), guess I shouldn’t use
that either.

To me, no results = all false positives.

While SDV needs a lot of work, I think it is a promising tool; however
it does need a lot more work. Never-the-less, it is freely available
and I personally don’t care to disregard it’s presence. I will continue
to use all tools available; whether I get zero hits or a hundred false
positives. If it’s at my disposal, I’ll use it.

If you or anyone else has a problem with a MS tool in particular, I hope
you would report it and post your difficulties public in hopes that
MS might actually take it seriously and ‘attempt’ to fix it (just dreaming).

Mark Roddy

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Matt wrote:
> Static Driver Verifier (SDV) and PreFast are both very good, those with
> driver verifier and windbg should be sufficient.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of
> xxxxx@gmail.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:17 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] Using Call Usage Verifier
>
> Are there good tools available for static analysis of kernel drivers? How
> about PreFast?
> -lazlo
>
> —
> 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

OSR_Community_User · March 30, 2009, 9:27am

I’m not sure if this what Mark was talking about or not, but in my experience, a sdv run produces
one of three results:

a. it doesn’t finish
b. it doesn’t find anything that can actually be identified and repaired
c. it doesn’t find anything that can’t be found with prefast is a fraction of the time

The problem SDV is trying to solve most definitely falls in the ‘hard’ category, so I don’t mean it
like SDV is a simple matter; it isn’t, which to me would also put it solidly in the ‘research’
bucket. My issue with SDV is that it presumably consumes a lot of resources that could otherwise be
used by tools like, say, PREFast.

mm

Matt wrote:

“Oh well if you have actually had SDV work for you and find a bug that
you could actually identify and repair I’d be fascinated to hear about
it.”

“When I could actually get it to run it never found anything.”

Given that logic, I shouldn’t use pre-fast since it usually returns
false positives. Same with pc-lint… Given one of the current threads,
DV blows up on legal code (as an added feature), guess I shouldn’t use
that either.

To me, no results = all false positives.

While SDV needs a lot of work, I think it is a promising tool; however
it does need a lot more work. Never-the-less, it is freely available
and I personally don’t care to disregard it’s presence. I will continue
to use all tools available; whether I get zero hits or a hundred false
positives. If it’s at my disposal, I’ll use it.

If you or anyone else has a problem with a MS tool in particular, I hope
you would report it and post your difficulties public in hopes that
MS might actually take it seriously and ‘attempt’ to fix it (just dreaming).

Mark Roddy

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Matt wrote:
>> Static Driver Verifier (SDV) and PreFast are both very good, those with
>> driver verifier and windbg should be sufficient.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of
>> xxxxx@gmail.com
>> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:17 AM
>> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
>> Subject: RE:[ntdev] Using Call Usage Verifier
>>
>> Are there good tools available for static analysis of kernel drivers? How
>> about PreFast?
>> -lazlo
>>
>> —
>> 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
>
>

Don_Burn_1 · March 30, 2009, 9:34am

Matt,

I no longer use SDV after an initial try on a project. It can go in
cases where it consumes a large amount of the CPU and yet fails with the
various problems (such as static). I do alway try it, but it is not a
regular part of my development because of its limitations.

–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr

“Matt” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> “Oh well if you have actually had SDV work for you and find a bug that
> you could actually identify and repair I’d be fascinated to hear about
> it.”
>
> “When I could actually get it to run it never found anything.”
>
> Given that logic, I shouldn’t use pre-fast since it usually returns
> false positives. Same with pc-lint… Given one of the current threads,
> DV blows up on legal code (as an added feature), guess I shouldn’t use
> that either.
>
> To me, no results = all false positives.
>
> While SDV needs a lot of work, I think it is a promising tool; however
> it does need a lot more work. Never-the-less, it is freely available
> and I personally don’t care to disregard it’s presence. I will continue
> to use all tools available; whether I get zero hits or a hundred false
> positives. If it’s at my disposal, I’ll use it.
>
> If you or anyone else has a problem with a MS tool in particular, I hope
> you would report it and post your difficulties public in hopes that
> MS might actually take it seriously and ‘attempt’ to fix it (just
> dreaming).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark Roddy
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Matt wrote:
>> Static Driver Verifier (SDV) and PreFast are both very good, those with
>> driver verifier and windbg should be sufficient.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of
>> xxxxx@gmail.com
>> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:17 AM
>> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
>> Subject: RE:[ntdev] Using Call Usage Verifier
>>
>> Are there good tools available for static analysis of kernel drivers? How
>> about PreFast?
>> -lazlo
>>
>> —
>> 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
>
>
>
> Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3974 (20090330)
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3974 (20090330)

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com