PE delayed import table - need a description.
in [Win32 Kernel]
|
From: R.Wieser on 30 Sep 2009 18:22 Hello Remy, > It basically says that Microsoft is granting permission for the > reader to use the information in the document to implement > their own Windows-based compilers, linkers, and assemblers Than that EULA would definitily not be for me, as I'm trying to write something else (I could maybe classify it as a PE inspector). It would allso mean that I could not write a tool for anything regarding to PE style files on, for example, Linux. Somehow that does not quite feel like granting permission, but more like restricting usage. > > As I allready mentioned, no such info is present in the > > 1999 version ... > > Because Microsoft was not delay-loading DLLs yet in > 1999. Really ? Thats funny, as I found a table named "The Delay-Load Directory Table" (entry 13) in the 1999 spec, and a ntdll.dl with an OS-version of 4.0 (W98se) using that table. Or is that table something else altogether ? Reference : http://download.microsoft.com/download/e/b/a/eba1050f-a31d-436b-9281-92cdfea e4b45/pecoff.doc Its allso quite strange that the above-named table is mentioned in that 1999 document, but not actually explained in there. I just checked the Kernel32.dll of an XP installation (OS version 5.1), and it has got a same-formatted "The Delay-Load Directory Table" as the above w98se ntdll.dll (a list of DWORDs). I'm confused : With which version of Windoes *did* that delayed-import of functions come to life, and what was the tables meaning/use before than ? > Kind of hard to do without an email address. :-) Yes, that makes it quite impossible, does it ? But would you actually have done it ? Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: Remy Lebeau <no.spam(a)no.spam.com> schreef in berichtnieuws elVMyteQKHA.3540(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > "R.Wieser" <address(a)not.available> wrote in message > news:OV%23$MsbQKHA.5032(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > > But now you ask, just try to put the below *single* > > sentence into plain English and you know what I mean : > > It basically says that Microsoft is granting permission for the reader to > use the information in the document to implement their own Windows-based > compilers, linkers, and assemblers, and if there are any existing patents on > the technology described in the document then the document allows the reader > to not violate any related areas of those patents. > > > As I allready mentioned, no such info is present in the 1999 version ... > > Because Microsoft was not delay-loading DLLs yet in 1999. Borland had > already implemented delay-loading in its compiler by that time, though, > which is likely where Microsoft got the idea and then write a formal spec > for it later on (some of Borland's compiler gurus went to Microsoft for > awhile - the architect behind much of early .NET was originally from > Borland). > > > What about you downloading that 2008 version and send it to me ? > > If you *really* think its free you should be able to do that without a > > single thought, and I do not need to do something I don't like (signing > > a EULA for some information). :-) > > Kind of hard to do without an email address. > > -- > Remy Lebeau (TeamB)
From: R.Wieser on 30 Sep 2009 17:37 Hello Random, > That sentence is plain English, and very clearly > granting you something you in fact didn't have > without the EULA. Really ? Granting me something I would in fact not have without the EULA ? Can you explain that to me ? And if you are at it than please allso explain to me what "under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions" is suposed to mean. And I wonder why those "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions" are not part of the EULA itself (is it actually legal to refer to unspecified items that way ?) Allso tell me how a restriction for the information only to be used for "development tools known as compilers, linkers, and assemblers" (excluding things like viewers, convertors, extractors and other stuff), and its restriction to use it only for programs "targeting Microsoft Windows" can be regarded as "giving" me something (excluding its usage on Linux, Mac and other operating-systems). If its that your "plain English, and very clearly granting" than pardon me, but I think you're a fool. Currently I can use the PE info I allready have for/in any program on any OS I please. That is way more than I could do if I would accept that EULA. So yes, I *do* think its trying to restrict (me) and not, as you seem to think, grant (me) anything. > So, you're afraid of an EULA for strange unspecified reasons, > but you have no problem with copyright infringement? Brilliant. :-) Too bad you fully pulled that outof context and did not recognise it as the hood-wink (to Remy) I ment it to be. Notice that I did not leave a contact-address, nor is my email-address in the headers of this message valid. Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional mesage: Random <random.coder(a)gmail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws 3d3faf9c-4207-458e-ba5b-7019a25cfde1(a)f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com... On Sep 30, 3:45 am, "R.Wieser" <addr...(a)not.available> wrote: > But now you ask, just try to put the below *single* sentence into plain > English and you know what I mean : > ============= > Microsoft will grant a royalty-free license, under reasonable and > non-discriminatory terms and conditions, to any Microsoft patent claims (if > any exist) that Microsoft deems necessary for the limited purpose of > implementing and complying with the required portions of this specification > only in the software development tools known as compilers, linkers, and > assemblers targeting Microsoft Windows. That sentence is plain English, and very clearly granting you something you in fact didn't have without the EULA. > What about you downloading that 2008 version and send it to me ? So, you're afraid of an EULA for strange unspecified reasons, but you have no problem with copyright infringement? Brilliant.
From: Random on 30 Sep 2009 19:39 On Sep 30, 2:37 pm, "R.Wieser" <addr...(a)not.available> wrote: > If its that your "plain English, and very clearly granting" than pardon me, > but I think you're a fool. I'm not an attorney, but I work with attorneys on a daily basis, and that didn't look like normal legalize to me, but rather a readable contract. I'm biased, obviously, though. > Currently I can use the PE info I allready have for/in any program on any OS > I please. That is way more than I could do if I would accept that EULA.. I haven't read the entire EULA, so you might be right, I was just trying to point out that the one section you quoted seems designed to give Windows developers license to use some of Microsoft's patents, if there are actually any that apply to this document. Non-windows developers would be uneffected by the paragraph. Feel free to disagree with me, as I've said, I'm not an attorney. Nor do I really care one way or the other.
From: R.Wieser on 1 Oct 2009 04:44 Hello Random, >I'm not an attorney, but I work with attorneys on > a daily basis, and that didn't look like normal > legalize to me, but rather a readable contract. > I'm biased, obviously, though. You're right, I allso can read all the words from it. Alas, its *meaning* escapes me. Ofcourse, I allways assume that a legally-binding contract (that a EULA pretends to be) contains/must contain specific information. Phrases like "under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions" and "that Microsoft deems necessary" therefore have no meaning to me (are to be decided after agreeing to the contract by one party only, which is, as far as I know, illegal in most countries), making it jibberish. > I was just trying to point out that the one section > you quoted seems designed to give Windows > developers license to use some of Microsoft's > patents, if there are actually any that apply to > this document. See the above. It might *seem* to do, but they (MS) where/are carefull not to go in any specifics : You're simply not able to check your "rights" beforehand, and will (most likely) have, in the case of a dispute, a hell of a time to even get them (MS) to agree which patents are actually applicable. Funnily enough they seem to be able to be *very* clear in specifying limits in regard to which types of programs the information *can* be used for. :-\ > Non-windows developers would be uneffected by the paragraph. I'm sorry ? "Microsoft will grant ... for the limited purpose of .... targeting Microsoft Windows." That looks clear enough to me : Not for MS Windows ? No grant (meaning : you can't use the info you get from this document). Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: Random <random.coder(a)gmail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws c39ad075-777e-49c2-b878-0e8561b1e3b2(a)t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On Sep 30, 2:37 pm, "R.Wieser" <addr...(a)not.available> wrote: > If its that your "plain English, and very clearly granting" than pardon me, > but I think you're a fool. I'm not an attorney, but I work with attorneys on a daily basis, and that didn't look like normal legalize to me, but rather a readable contract. I'm biased, obviously, though. > Currently I can use the PE info I allready have for/in any program on any OS > I please. That is way more than I could do if I would accept that EULA. I haven't read the entire EULA, so you might be right, I was just trying to point out that the one section you quoted seems designed to give Windows developers license to use some of Microsoft's patents, if there are actually any that apply to this document. Non-windows developers would be uneffected by the paragraph. Feel free to disagree with me, as I've said, I'm not an attorney. Nor do I really care one way or the other.
From: Stefan Kuhr on 1 Oct 2009 06:10
Hi Rudy and Remy, R.Wieser wrote: > <snip> >>> As I allready mentioned, no such info is present in the >>> 1999 version ... >> Because Microsoft was not delay-loading DLLs yet in >> 1999. > > Really ? Thats funny, as I found a table named "The Delay-Load Directory > Table" (entry 13) in the 1999 spec, and a ntdll.dl with an OS-version of 4.0 > (W98se) using that table. Or is that table something else altogether ? > > Reference : > http://download.microsoft.com/download/e/b/a/eba1050f-a31d-436b-9281-92cdfea > e4b45/pecoff.doc > > Its allso quite strange that the above-named table is mentioned in that 1999 > document, but not actually explained in there. > Remy is wrong with his statement, that in 1999 there was no delayload support in MS's development products (that is how I interpret "Microsoft was not delay-loading DLLs yet in 1999." and that he contrasts this with Borland's compilers' ability to create binaries with the delay-loading feature when he says "Borland had already implemented delay-loading in its compiler by that time...") VC6 was the first C/C++ compiler/linker from MS that had the delay-loading feature. It was mentioned for instance in Matt Pietrek's "Under The Hood" column of the December 1998 "Microsoft Systems Journal" issue. The files on my VC6 installation CD date back to the June/July 1998 timeframe. So it should be clear that by autumn 1998 there was indeed delay-load support in MS compilers/linkers. > I just checked the Kernel32.dll of an XP installation (OS version 5.1), and > it has got a same-formatted "The Delay-Load Directory Table" as the above > w98se ntdll.dll (a list of DWORDs). > > I'm confused : With which version of Windoes *did* that delayed-import of > functions come to life, and what was the tables meaning/use before than ? > Delayloading is not an OS feature. It is a linker feature. I have written applications using VC6 that use delayloading and even run on NT3.51 which clearly predates the introduction of delayloading as a linker feature. Rudy, just in case that helps you: I have written an article around some common code of mine a few years ago, which can be found here and which deals with finding delay-loaded imports: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/files/pefiles.aspx It is based on an MSDN magazine article from Matt Pietrek from February 2002 which can be found here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc301805.aspx Cheers, -- S |