I agree 100%. A combination of the Shim Engine, MinWin/API Sets and Fusion/SxS would help us achieve these goals while at the same time implementing key missing Windows features we don't yet have.
Best regards, Alex Ionescu On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Timo Kreuzer <timo.kreu...@web.de> wrote: > Hi, > > Here's the promised suggestion regarding how we handle versioning problems > in reactos. It has some relationship to the tree restructure. > > Since some time we now run into issues with our targeted Windows version. > This is both wine dlls, as well as applications that refuse to run due to > reactos being limited to Windows server 2003 SP2. > > I think many of us, me included, see more in ReactOS than an academic > research project, or a nice way for 3rd party companies to cheaply get > insight into how the Windows kernel works. So we are interested in making > it an actually useful operating system. To achieve this goal, it is > obviously important to make it run modern Windows applications. > > The current approach of pure Windows 2003 Server SP2 compatibility on user > mode side is a dead end. Our target OS version is starting to become a > fossil. With time more and more applications will simply refuse to work on > it. Even wine DLLs start to require Vista APIs and their number will most > likely increase. > > So what can we do? It is obvious, that we cannot instantaniously switch > all user mode to Windows 7/8/10 compatibility, due to the amount of > required work, especially regarding missing kernel features. > > The wine approach is just adding whatever is needed, creating a Windows > version chimera. It has already been discussed here and shown to be a > problem, since it can easily fool applications into believing they run on > Vista or Windows 7, making them demand all the modern features, which we > cannot provide, thus failing to run, while they would run flawlessly, when > being provided a pure Windows 2003 environment, restricting itself to this > functionality. So this is also not a very good way, either. > > So the conclusion is, that we need a mechanism, that allows us to control > this, providing individual applications with what they require, while > leaving others in a more restricted environment. And at the same time > allowing our internal/wine DLLs to make use of higher version functionality. > > Suggested approach: > > 1. We need a method to specify which application should be run in which > environment. We should probably use the same mechanism that is used on > Windows. Compatibility information is stored in a registry key > HKCU\Software\Microsodt\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags\... The > trick is to make this easy / transparent for the user. A right-click -> > properties -> compatibility approach should for now probably be the easiest > thing, even if it requires the user to actively make this setting. A larger > app compatibility database would be nice, but it would be difficult to > figure out what application is being run. And it's also a problem to > maintain such a list. Potential solutions: detect failures to load due to > missing imports and app crashes and invoke a "compatibility assistent" in > that case. Detect first-run of a new application and try to identify it, > either based on a hash or based on PE version information. > > 2. We need a way to provide the application transparently with the > environment we want to give it. In terms of DLL exports this could be done > on the loader side, making it chose the right DLL, potentially adding a > suffix to the DLL name or selecting a different folder other than system32. > While this will most likely work good in the majority of cases, it is not > 100% transparent. Therefore a mechanism in the kernel, using file system > redirection, like it already exists on 64 bit Windows for WoW64, seems to > be a more promising approach. The file system redirection would redirect > system32 into merged folders, containing the version specific DLLs, while > everything that is not existing in this folder will be taken from the > original system32. Potential naming scheme: system32.601 system32.602, etc. > > 3. We need a method to create and maintain the required DLLs for different > OS versions. Preferably avoiding bloat by sharing common code in common > "parent" DLLs. But also allowing to still plug the DLLs into the related > Windows version for testing. This can be tricky. I suggest a DLL import > forwarding scheme. This is both to avoid bloat, i.e. avoid to compile and > deploy all full blown DLLs for all OS versions, as well as creating a > better organized system. So each DLL, lets say ADVAPI32, as located in > different version specific system32 folders, would mainly/only consist of > forwarders to a "parent" DLL. On Windows we can see this being developed > similarly, using "api sets" and redirections made by the loader. Cloning > this mechanism 1:1 might not be the right thing though, since it does not > address all our requirements. So instead I suggest proving our own custom > "parent DLLs". While these could be organized the same way as on Windows > 2003, this is probably not optimal. Instead I suggest merging stuff > together into 1 or few DLLs (similar to how stuff was combined in > kernelbase.dll) > This might looks like this (note, that the names are just quickly made up > names, I don't claim that they are good) > - user32/gdi32 -> ros-win32-core.dll > - kernel32/advapi32 -> ros-kernel-base.dll > - msvcr* -> ros-crt.dll > - ntdll -> ros-ntdll (the kernel would need to load this one) > > This also allows our DLLs to make use of higher version APIs, by linking > them to the parent DLL. > Now this obviously introduces a problem when trying to run individual DLLs > within a Windows system. To still be able to do this for testing purposes, > we need to make sure that they still run there. > First, if they import from a custom ros-* DLL, it won't run on Windows > without that DLL. So we need the possibility to either statically link > these functions, or compile a "helper DLL", that contains these functions, > so our DLLs can be run on Windows. > If we used a common parent DLL, this also creates the problem of DLL > initialization. e.g. the DLL parent for kernel32 and advapi32 would do the > initialization for both of these, so this would not be suitable to use when > replacing only one of the DLLs. Instead DLL initialization could be done by > calling a specific initialization function in the parent DLL from the child > DLL. So kernel32!DllMain would call ros-kernel-base!DllMain_kernel32, > passing the original parameters as well as a version number, that the > parent DLL can use to do version specific initialization. This way The > parent DLL would only do the kernel32 initialization, when the related > kernel32 child DLL was used, the advapi32 initialization would not be done. > There is still a problem: relocation. So we would need to make sure we > chose base addresses that still allow us to plug the stuff into Windows > without causing everything to relocate, which often simply doesn't work. > As an alternative, we should provide a compile time switch to compile > specific DLLs in a self-contained way. > > In terms of structure we could use the MS api-sets as a base for static > libraries. Then we can link these either into the parent DLLs like > ros-kernel-base.dll or - when a compile switch is given - to link together > fully self contained DLLs. > > I am really not interested in answers like "This is not what WIndows > does!", "THIS CANNOT WORK!!!", "You are a ***** even suggesting this", > "What if application x parses the import table and disassembles the DLL to > hook into internal functions, ...": > > I am only interested in *constructive* comments. > Everything else: -> /dev/null > > Thanks, > Timo > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
