Ilias,
Thanks…
I was very happy using v1.7, then Win-7 and its v1.9 showed up and there was a need to update to this new co-installer, compile using DDK 7600 and in order to get a digital signature it’s a must to have v1.9 in my driver binaries… I’ll certainly face the same update issue on Win-7 when moving to DDK 7600+1 and it’s new co-installer in a near future (-_-") …
I apreciate all the help provided by all of you guys!
Best Regards,
Ismael
iduron@ti.com wrote:
I was very happy using v1.7, then Win-7 and its v1.9 showed up and there was a need to update to this new co-installer, compile using DDK 7600 and in order to get a digital signature it’s a must to have v1.9 in my driver binaries…
Who told you that? I’m not aware of any WHQL requirement that you build
with the very latest WDK. Indeed, I’m not sure how they would even know
which version you used.
I’ll certainly face the same update issue on Win-7 when moving to DDK 7600+1 and it’s new co-installer in a near future (-_-") …
True, although probably not the “near” future…
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
You can still use the KMDF 1.7 RTM coinstaller, together with the 6001.18002 WDK and sign your KMDF drivers (i.e. you don’t have to use the 7600 WDK).
Of course, in this scenario you won’t use the latest tools and libraries that are in the 7600 WDK, but if you want to use v1.7 you won’t be using the latest version of KMDF anyway.
If you think that updating a system to the latest version of KMDF is a big hassle, then you can keep using the 6001.18002 WDK and keep signing your drivers with it.
Generally, you can think of KMDF as an inbox component and only support systems that already include it (e.g. Vista SP1 already has KMDF 1.7, Win7 already has KMDF 1.9, etc). If your system already has the needed version of KMDF, then you don’t even need the coinstaller. The scenario is really simple. If you want to use v1.9 in systems that don’t already have it, then you will have to update the system (using a coinstaller). If the system already has v1.9 then the coinstaller won’t do anything. If you want to use v1.7, then you can do so using the v1.7 coinstaller, which will update systems that don’t have v1.7 (e.g. Vista RTM, Windows XP, etc).
Ilias
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of iduron@ti.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 3:03 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] WDF co-installer v1.9 has dependencies on Vista OS.
Ilias,
Thanks…
I was very happy using v1.7, then Win-7 and its v1.9 showed up and there was a need to update to this new co-installer, compile using DDK 7600 and in order to get a digital signature it’s a must to have v1.9 in my driver binaries… I’ll certainly face the same update issue on Win-7 when moving to DDK 7600+1 and it’s new co-installer in a near future (-_-") …
I apreciate all the help provided by all of you guys!
Best Regards,
Ismael
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 was told (by an MS document “DEVFUND-0039 Version 2, Date: 6/1/2009” given to one of our driver developers), that in order to get Win-7 digital signatures it was needed to have co-installer v1.9 in my Win-7 driver binaries as well as in my previous Vista and XP driver binaries.
I think that a similar situation is found at this thread (obviously at that time v1.9 was not RTM):
http://www.osronline.com/showthread.cfm?link=162492
Maybe I’m missing some details, and I don’t know if there’s an updated document explaining how the co-installer distribution should be done for XP, Vista and Win-7 at this point in time.
Thanks,
Ismael
DEVFUND-0039 says if you want to use WDF 1.9 you must use the WDF 1.9
coinstaller, it does not require you to use WDF 1.9 for any system. It is
about ensuring that the co-installer in your package (if there is one) has
the correct version, not that you must use a specific version of WDF. If
your driver was working with WDF 1.7 it could have stayed 1.7.
–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>I was told (by an MS document “DEVFUND-0039 Version 2, Date:
>6/1/2009Version 2, Date: 6/1/2009” given to one of our driver developers),
>that in order to get Win-7 digital signatures it was needed to have
>co-installer v1.9 in my Win-7 driver binaries as well as in my previous
>Vista and XP driver binaries.
>
> I think that a similar situation is found at this thread (obviously at
> that time v1.9 was not RTM):
>
> http://www.osronline.com/showthread.cfm?link=162492
>
> Maybe I’m missing some details, and I don’t know if there’s an updated
> document explaining how the co-installer distribution should be done for
> XP, Vista and Win-7 at this point in time.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ismael
>
>
> Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4712 (20091223)
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4712 (20091223)
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Adding to Don:
The situation regarding the distribution of WDF drivers is very simple: You can either use any RTM coinstaller (1.0 - 1.9) or no coinstaller. If you don’t use a coinstaller and the “needed” version of WDF is not already present in the system that you’re installing your driver (i.e. if your driver needs WDF 1.x, then you need WDF 1.y in your system, where y >= x), then your driver will not load.
Ilias
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:49 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] WDF co-installer v1.9 has dependencies on Vista OS.
DEVFUND-0039 says if you want to use WDF 1.9 you must use the WDF 1.9
coinstaller, it does not require you to use WDF 1.9 for any system. It is
about ensuring that the co-installer in your package (if there is one) has
the correct version, not that you must use a specific version of WDF. If
your driver was working with WDF 1.7 it could have stayed 1.7.
–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>I was told (by an MS document “DEVFUND-0039 Version 2, Date:
>6/1/2009Version 2, Date: 6/1/2009” given to one of our driver developers),
>that in order to get Win-7 digital signatures it was needed to have
>co-installer v1.9 in my Win-7 driver binaries as well as in my previous
>Vista and XP driver binaries.
>
> I think that a similar situation is found at this thread (obviously at
> that time v1.9 was not RTM):
>
> http://www.osronline.com/showthread.cfm?link=162492
>
> Maybe I’m missing some details, and I don’t know if there’s an updated
> document explaining how the co-installer distribution should be done for
> XP, Vista and Win-7 at this point in time.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ismael
>
>
> Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4712 (20091223)
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4712 (20091223)
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
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roddy
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 1:50 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re: [ntdev] WDF co-installer v1.9 has dependencies on Vista OS.
Probably MS will solve this issue by rolling the Windows Update patch which will upgrade all KMDF binaries in all Windows versions in the world to 1.9.
After such a thing, the installation of 1.9 driver will not require a reboot.
Let’s say that we did put KMDF in Windows Update. Are you sure that 100% of the systems worldwide will install this Windows Update package? Would you depend on the fact that the user had this package installed in his system (and risk having him complain that your driver is not working in his system) or would you prefer to somehow bundle the WU package together with your driver somehow (either within a coinstaller or as a separate package)?
Also, remember that if we bundle ourselves with Windows Update, then we’ll only be able to support the versions of Windows that are supported by WU. So, when WU stops updating Windows 2000/XP/Vista/etc, you won’t be able to ship WDF drivers (using the latest WDF versions) that work for those operating systems.
Probably it would be better to ship the WU package with a KMDF update instead of such a DLL.
I just wanted to add a small tidbit here:
Even if we provided you with the standalone WU package and you wrote your own installer app that installs the update package (i.e. you re-created the coinstaller yourselves), then you would not be able to avoid the reboot. The reboot is created, because we cannot update KMDF in-memory, when there’s >=1 KMDF driver running. The same applies for UMDF. We could stop all KMDF (or UMDF) drivers, then apply the update and then restart them, but I’m sure that we both agree that this is not a very good option. So, the the reboot is used, in order for the WDF files to be updated. Any Windows application would have to do exactly the same thing.
Ilias
If Microsoft pushed KMDF via WU, a lot of machines would have the latest
KMDF on them, ready and waiting when drivers needed it. More customers
would be able to install more drivers without reboot, improving their
satisfaction with the driver install experience. This is a Good Thing.
WU doesn’t eliminate the need for the coinstaller – but it could be a
nice optimization.
One other Good Thing about WU is that people expect it to run every
month and reboot their machine. They may not always like it, but they
expect it. If a customer is going to be unhappy about reboots, better
they be unhappy with Microsoft than the ISV/IHV. 
John McNamee wrote:
If Microsoft pushed KMDF via WU, a lot of machines would have the
latest KMDF on them, ready and waiting when drivers needed it. More
customers would be able to install more drivers without reboot,
improving their satisfaction with the driver install experience. This
is a Good Thing. WU doesn’t eliminate the need for the coinstaller –
but it could be a nice optimization.One other Good Thing about WU is that people expect it to run every
month and reboot their machine. They may not always like it, but they
expect it. If a customer is going to be unhappy about reboots, better
they be unhappy with Microsoft than the ISV/IHV. *:-)*
You know, this is a very interesting point that is worth considering. I
HATE that my machine reboots virtually every Tuesday night, but at least
I can focus my blame 180 miles to the north. As it is, the blame gets
spread around to whichever IHV was unlucky enough to be first in line.
To me, this is really the most compelling scenario out of all of the
alternatives that have been proposed here.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
How about the poor old, well maybe not too old, grandma who is not
installing anything on her notebook that the OEM did not already provide?
Nothing on that box, running XP, uses KMDF or UMDF and there is a close to
zero chance that there will ever be a need. This applies to many of the
computer users who know how to do what they want to do on the computer, but
no desire to learn more about them.
“Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> John McNamee wrote:
>>
>> If Microsoft pushed KMDF via WU, a lot of machines would have the
>> latest KMDF on them, ready and waiting when drivers needed it. More
>> customers would be able to install more drivers without reboot,
>> improving their satisfaction with the driver install experience. This
>> is a Good Thing. WU doesn’t eliminate the need for the coinstaller –
>> but it could be a nice optimization.
>>
>> One other Good Thing about WU is that people expect it to run every
>> month and reboot their machine. They may not always like it, but they
>> expect it. If a customer is going to be unhappy about reboots, better
>> they be unhappy with Microsoft than the ISV/IHV.
>
> You know, this is a very interesting point that is worth considering. I
> HATE that my machine reboots virtually every Tuesday night, but at least
> I can focus my blame 180 miles to the north. As it is, the blame gets
> spread around to whichever IHV was unlucky enough to be first in line.
>
> To me, this is really the most compelling scenario out of all of the
> alternatives that have been proposed here.
>
> –
> Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>
David Craig wrote:
How about the poor old, well maybe not too old, grandma who is not
installing anything on her notebook that the OEM did not already provide?
Nothing on that box, running XP, uses KMDF or UMDF and there is a close to
zero chance that there will ever be a need. This applies to many of the
computer users who know how to do what they want to do on the computer, but
no desire to learn more about them.
Well, what about her? What is the net cost? About 1.5MB of disk
space. If there aren’t any KMDF drivers, then she won’t ever need the
reboot. When there’s an update, it will just download and unpack.
It’s not like we don’t already have hundreds of megabytes of drivers and
DLLs on our hard disks that we don’t use.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
“Ilias Tsigkogiannis” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roddy
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 1:50 AM
>
>> Probably MS will solve this issue by rolling the Windows Update patch
>> which will upgrade all KMDF binaries in all Windows versions in the world
>> to 1.9.
>> After such a thing, the installation of 1.9 driver will not require a
>> reboot.
>
> Let’s say that we did put KMDF in Windows Update. Are you sure that 100%
> of the systems worldwide will install this Windows Update package? Would
> you depend on the fact that the user had this package installed in his
> system (and risk having him complain that your driver is not working in
> his system) or would you prefer to somehow bundle the WU package together
> with your driver somehow (either within a coinstaller or as a separate
> package)?
>
> Also, remember that if we bundle ourselves with Windows Update, then we’ll
> only be able to support the versions of Windows that are supported by WU.
> So, when WU stops updating Windows 2000/XP/Vista/etc, you won’t be able to
> ship WDF drivers (using the latest WDF versions) that work for those
> operating systems.
>
Thank you, Ilias, now it’s clear.
> I just wanted to add a small tidbit here:
> Even if we provided you with the standalone WU package and you wrote your
> own installer app that installs the update package (i.e. you re-created
> the coinstaller yourselves), then you would not be able to avoid the
> reboot. The reboot is created, because we cannot update KMDF in-memory,
> when there’s >=1 KMDF driver running. The same applies for UMDF. We could
> stop all KMDF (or UMDF) drivers, then apply the update and then restart
> them, but I’m sure that we both agree that this is not a very good option.
> So, the the reboot is used, in order for the WDF files to be updated. Any
> Windows application would have to do exactly the same thing.
>
However, a standalone WDF upgrade allows more control as to when it
happens.
Imagine this scenario:
- an admin reads in his morning RSS feed, that a new WDF update is out.
- he verifies that the update works well with their current set of drivers,
and decides to push it
to the users, with the next batch of updates (that may require a reboot
anyway).
- From now on, his users are “immune” to any new driver package built with
this version.
Thanks again,
–pa
“David Craig” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> How about the poor old, well maybe not too old, grandma who is not
> installing anything on her notebook that the OEM did not already provide?
> Nothing on that box, running XP, uses KMDF or UMDF and there is a close to
> zero chance that there will ever be a need. This applies to many of the
> computer users who know how to do what they want to do on the computer,
> but no desire to learn more about them.
IMHO, the ultimate answer to this has been given: No man is an island,
entire of itself.
What if the car of that grandma breaks? she is going to go to a garage.
A fridge or TV breaks? call for repair. Computer problems? Same thing, call
somebody to fix it, or set up Windows Update at least.
Regards,
–pa