• The Old New Thing

    Saying that your case is different doesn't make it so

    • 24 Comments

    A customer wanted to do one of those user-hostile things that Windows doesn't make easy to do (the sort of thing I tend to call out on this Web site). After receiving an explanation that Windows doesn't provide a way of doing what they want because it abuses the component in question and goes against user expectations, the customer countered, "Yes, we understand that, but our case is different."

    The customer then proceeded to explain how they intended to use this newfound power (if only they could figure out how to do it) and under what circumstances they intend to invoke it. Their explanation was interesting in that the description could be applied to any other program on the planet.

    Yes, we understand that, but our case is different. We would do this only after the user installs the program or reconfigures it from the Add or Remove Programs control panel. After a few days, we would stop doing it, unless triggered by a reinstall or a reconfiguration.

    So far, there's nothing here that explains why your program should be able to do this, but not, say, Photoshop. There is no evidence that this program is any different from the tens of thousands of other programs out there, many of which probably want to do that very same thing this program wants to do.

    Just because you say that your case is different doesn't make it so.

  • The Old New Thing

    Why doesn't the End Task button end my task immediately?

    • 64 Comments

    Commenter littleguru asks, "Why does the End Now button not kill the process immediately?"

    When you click the End Now button, the process really does end now, but not before a brief message from our sponsor.

    When you kill a hung application, Windows Error Reporting steps in to record the state of the hung application so it can be submitted to the mother ship (with your permission). If you are running Windows XP or Windows Vista, you can briefly see a process called dumprep.exe or WerFault.exe; these are the guys who are doing the data collection.

    After being uploaded to Microsoft, these failure reports are studied to determine why the application stopped responding and what could be done to fix it. I've been asked to do quite a few of these analyses myself, and sometimes it's something pretty mundane (an application sends a cross-thread message while holding a critical section, and the thread can't receive the message because it's stuck waiting for the critical section that the sender is holding—classic deadlock), and sometimes it's something pretty weird (application has a bug if the number of sound output devices is not equal to one). Whatever the reason, I write up my analysis, and the people who are in charge of such things make arrangements for the information to be sent back to the vendors who wrote the application (assuming the vendors are registered with Winqual).

    If you don't want Windows Error Reporting to collect application crash and hang reports, you can disable it from the Group Policy Editor under Windows Error Reporting. Of course, if you do this, then you don't get to vote on which program crashes and failures Microsoft should work on fixing.

    Note: This entry is an experiment: I mentioned Windows Error Reporting and WHQL. If people complain about digital certificate authorities, that'll just confirm my bias against returning to those old debugging stories.

    Update: Experimental results obtained. No more stories involving Windows Error Reporting and WHQL.

  • The Old New Thing

    It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown: The world of competitive pumpkin-growing

    • 7 Comments

    Bill Littlefield of NPR's sports program Only a Game interviews Susan Warren about competitive pumpkin-growing. [Direct link - Real format] An excerpt from her book Backyard Giants was printed in The Wall Street Journal: The Race to Break the Squash Barrier, the quest to grow a one-ton pumpkin. I'm fascinated by these subcultures of people obsessed with one thing.

  • The Old New Thing

    Debugging walkthrough: Diagnosing a __purecall failure

    • 4 Comments

    Prerequisite: Understanding what __purecall means.

    I was asked to help diagnose an issue in which a program managed to stumble into the __purecall function.

    XYZ!_purecall:
    00a14509 a100000000      mov     eax,dword ptr ds:[00000000h] ds:0023:00000000=????????
    

    The stack at the point of failure looked like this:

    XYZ!_purecall
    XYZ!CViewFrame::SetFrame+0x14d
    XYZ!CViewFrame::SetPresentation+0x355
    XYZ!CViewFrame::BeginView+0x1fe
    

    The line at XYZ!CViewFrame::SetFrame that called the mystic __purecall was a simple AddRef:

      pSomething->AddRef(); // crashes in __purecall
    

    From what we know of __purecall, this means that somebody called into a virtual method on a derived class after the derived class's destructor has run. Okay, well, let's see if we can find the object in question. Since the method being called is a COM method, the __stdcall calling convention applies, which means that the this pointer is on the stack.

    0:023> dd esp+4 l1
    0529f76c  06a88d58
    

    Using our knowledge of the layout of a COM object, we can navigate through memory to find the vtable.

    0:023> dps 06a88d58
    06a88d58  009b2eac XYZ!CRegistrationSink::`vftable'
    06a88d5c  06b20058
    06a88d60  00000002 
    06a88d64  00998930 XYZ!CObjectWithBrush::`vftable'
    06a88d68  00000000 
    06a88d6c  009c9c80 XYZ!CBrowseSite::`vftable'
    06a88d70  009c9c70 XYZ!CBrowseSite::`vftable'
    06a88d74  00000000
    ....
    0:023> dps 009b2eac
    009b2eac  00a14509 XYZ!_purecall // virtual QueryInterface() = 0
    009b2eb0  00a14509 XYZ!_purecall // virtual AddRef() = 0
    009b2eb4  00a14509 XYZ!_purecall // virtual Release() = 0
    009b2eb8  009cb1e4 XYZ!CRegistrationSink::Register
    009b2ebc  009b3d2d XYZ!CRegistrationSink::Unregister
    

    We see that the object has been destructed down to the CRegistrationSink base class, and the attempt to increment its reference count has led us into the abyss of __purecall.

    But what was this object before it descended into madness?

    Well, we know that the object was something derived from CRegistrationSink. And the other values in memory tell us that the object most likely also derived from CObjectWithBrush and CBrowseSite. Just for fun, here's the CObjectWithBrush vtable, to confirm that we destructed down to that point:

    00998930  00a14509 XYZ!_purecall // virtual QueryInterface() = 0
    00998934  00a14509 XYZ!_purecall // virtual AddRef() = 0
    00998938  00a14509 XYZ!_purecall // virtual Release() = 0
    0099893c  0099880d XYZ!CObjectWithBrush::SetBrush
    00998940  00a319ee XYZ!CObjectWithBrush::GetBrush
    00998944  00a13fd9 XYZ!CObjectWithBrush::`scalar deleting destructor'
    

    Ooh, it looks like CObjectWithBrush has a virtual destructor. Probably to destroy the brush.

    A check of the source code tells us that nobody derives from CBrowseSite, so that is almost certainly the original object type.

    As a cross-check, we check whether what we have matches the memory layout of a CBrowseSite:

    0:023> dt XYZ!CBrowseSite 06a88d58
       +0x000 __VFN_table : 0x009b2eac
       +0x004 m_prgreg         : 0x06a88d58 Registration
       +0x008 m_creg           : 2
       +0x00c __VFN_table : 0x00998930
       +0x010 m_hbr            : (null)
       +0x014 __VFN_table : 0x009c9c80
       +0x018 __VFN_table : 0x009c9c70
       +0x01c m_cRef           : 0
    

    Looks not unreasonable. (Well, aside from the fact that we have a bug...) The object has most likely begun its destruction because its reference count (_cRef) went to zero.

    At this point, there was enough information to ask the developers responsible for CViewFrame and CBrowseSite to work out how the CViewFrame ended up running around with a pointer to an object that has already been destructed.

  • The Old New Thing

    Why is there an LVN_ODSTATECHANGED notification when there's already a perfectly good LVN_ITEMCHANGED notification?

    • 4 Comments

    If you work with owner-data listviews, you take the responsibility for managing the data associated with each item in the list view. The list view control itself only knows how many items there are; when it needs information about an item, it asks you for it. It's the fancy name for a "virtual list view" control.

    When you use an ownerdata list view, you will receive a new notification, LVN_ODSTATECHANGED. The OD stands for ownerdata, so this is an "owner data state changed" notification. The list view sends this notification when the state of one or more items in an owner data list view control change simultaneously. Mind you, the list view control can also send the LVN_ITEMCHANGED notification if the state of an item changes, so you need to be on the lookout for both.

    If there is a notification LVN_ITEMCHANGED, then what's the purpose of the LVN_ODSTATECHANGED message? It's redundant, after all.

    Well yes, it's redundant, but it's faster, too. The LVN_ODSTATECHANGED notification tells you that the state of all items in the specified range has changed. It's a shorthand for sending an individual LVN_ITEMCHANGED for all items in the range [iFrom..iTo]. If you have an ownerdata list view with 500,000 items and somebody does a select-all, you'll be glad that you get a single LVN_ODSTATECHANGED notification with iFrom=0 and iTo=499999 instead of a half million individual little LVN_ITEMCHANGED notifications.

  • The Old New Thing

    How do I programmatically invoke Aero Peek on a window?

    • 27 Comments

    A customer wanted to know if there was a way for their application to invoke the Aero Peek feature so that their window appeared and all the other windows on the system turned transparent.

    No, there is no such programmatic interface exposed. Aero Peek is a feature for the user to invoke, not a feature for applications to invoke so they can draw attention to themselves.

    Yes, I realize you wrote a program so awesome that all other programs pale in comparison, and that part of your mission is to make all the other programs literally pale in comparison to your program.

    Sorry.

    Maybe you can meet up with that other program that is the most awesome program in the history of the universe and share your sorrows over a beer.

  • The Old New Thing

    Hacking Barney the dinosaur for fun (no profit)

    • 21 Comments

    Many years ago, Microsoft produced a collection of interactive toys called ActiMates, and one of the features was that television programs could broadcast an encoded signal which would enable the toy to interact with the program. The idea would be that the Barney doll would do something that was coordinated with what was happening on Barney & Friends.

    When this came out, a bunch of us wondered what it would take to hack into the device and get Barney to say and do, um, very un-Barneyish things. One of us managed to get a schematic for the device, but since none of us was an electrical engineer, that pretty much dead-ended the project.

    Over ten years later, I learned that we weren't the only people to get that idea. I met someone who told me that he managed to get his hands on the internal devkit for the ActiMates series and control a Barney doll from his PC. Not satisfied with being limited to the built-in Barney phrases, he was able to "take additional creative steps with the devkit" to stream his own replacement audio to the device (although he was never able to get the sound quality of his streamed audio to sound as good as the built-in phrases). As a result, he could make Barney say whatever he wanted, and if he really felt like it, he could wake up all the Barney toys in his apartment complex at midnight and give orders to his robot army of purple dinosaurs.

    The catch was that his robot army most likely would have consisted of just one robot.

    Bonus reading: SWEETPEA: Software Tools for Programmable Embodied Agents [pdf], Michael Kaminsky, Paul Dourish, W. Keith Edwards, Anthony LaMarca, Michael Salisbury and Ian Smith, CHI'99.

  • The Old New Thing

    Belated happy first birthday, Windows 7

    • 33 Comments

    On Friday, the marketing folks informed me that they decided to put me on the Microsoft Careers United States home page in recognition of Windows 7's first birthday. It's an honor and to be honest a bit scary to be chosen to be the face of Windows on a day of such significance. (They told me that had narrowed it down to me and "some Director of Test". Sorry, Director of Test; maybe they'll pick you for Windows 7's second birthday.)

    I think my picture is still there (they didn't tell me how long it was going to be up), but here's a screen capture just to prove it to my relatives:

    Here's looking at you, kid.

    (Thank goodness they cropped out my withered hand.)

    I wondered what would happen if I clicked Find jobs like mine. What did they consider to be jobs like mine? Alas, it just takes you to the job search page with no criteria filled in. Maybe every job at Microsoft is like mine?

    One of my colleagues teased me, "Did you really legally change your last name to Windows?"

  • The Old New Thing

    When you call a function, your code doesn't resume execution until that function returns

    • 18 Comments

    Consider this code fragment:

    void foo()
    {
      while (true) {
       bar();
       baz();
      }
    }
    

    When foo calls bar(), and bar has not yet returned, does foo continue executing? Does baz get called before bar returns?

    No, it does not.

    The basic structure of the C/C++ language imposes sequential execution. Control does not return to the foo function until bar returns control, either by reaching the end of the function or by an explicit return.

    Commenter Norman Diamond asks a bunch of questions, but they're all mooted by the first:

    I can't find any of the answers in MSDN, and even an answer to one doesn't make answers to others obvious.

    Unless failures occur, the DialogBox function doesn't return until the new dialog's DialogProc calls EndDialog. It starts its own message loop. Dkring this time the hwndParent (i.e. owner not parent) window is disabled. However, disabling doesn't prevent delivery of some kinds of messages to the parent window's WindowProc or DialogProc, and doesn't prevent delivery of any messages to the application's main message loop, right? So aren't there two or more message loops running in parallel?

    As long as the function DialogBox has not yet returned, control does not return to the application's main message loop, since it is the one which called DialogBox (most likely indirectly).

    MSDN doesn't explain this because it is a fundamental property of the C and C++ languages and is not peculiar to Win32.

    Disabling a window does not prevent it from receiving messages in general; it only disables mouse and keyboard input. This is called out in the opening sentence of the EnableWindow function documentation:

    The EnableWindow function enables or disables mouse and keyboard input to the specified window or control.

    Messages unrelated to mouse and keyboard input are delivered normally. And they aren't dispatched by the application's main message loop because, as we saw above, the main message loop isn't executing!

    I would recommend reviewing a book that covers the basics of Win32 GUI programming, since there appear to be some fundamental misunderstandings. Since I try to target an advanced audience, I generally assume that everybody understands the basics and is ready to move on to the intermediate and advanced topics. If you have trouble with the basics, you should work on that part first.

  • The Old New Thing

    The evolution of the ICO file format, part 4: PNG images

    • 25 Comments

    We finish our tour of the evolution of the ICO file format with the introduction of PNG-compressed images in Windows Vista.

    The natural way of introducing PNG support for icon images would be to allow the biCompression field of the BITMAP­INFO­HEADER to take the value BI_PNG, in which case the image would be represented not by a DIB but by a PNG. After all, that's why we have a biCompression field: For forward compatibility with future encoding systems. Wipe the dust off your hands and declare victory.

    Unfortunately, it wasn't that simple. If you actually try using ICO files in this format, you'll find that a number of popular icon-authoring tools crash when asked to load a PNG-compressed icon file for editing.

    The problem appeared to be that the new BI_PNG compression type appeared at a point in the parsing code where it was not prepared to handle such a failure (or the failure was never detected). The solution was to change the file format so that PNG-compressed images fail these programs' parsers at an earlier, safer step. (This is sort of the opposite of penetration testing, which keeps tweaking data to make the failure occur at a deeper, more dangerous step.)

    Paradoxically, the way to be more compatible is to be less compatible.

    The format of a PNG-compressed image consists simply of a PNG image, starting with the PNG file signature. The image must be in 32bpp ARGB format (known to GDI+ as Pixel­Format­32bpp­ARGB). There is no BITMAP­INFO­HEADER prefix, and no monochrome mask is present.

    Since we had to break compatibility with the traditional format for ICO images, we may as well solve the problem we saw last time of people who specify an incorrect mask. With PNG-compressed images, you do not provide the mask at all; the mask is derived from the alpha channel on the fly. One fewer thing for people to get wrong.

Page 123 of 429 (4,285 items) «121122123124125»