Jump to content

New old 2G file size bug


jds

Recommended Posts


Try this experimental file.

Well rloew, I have bad news and good news...

The bad news is... my internet connection stinks...

The good news is... I had no crash when starting VideoReDo Plus :).

Keep up the great work!

Correction: Bad news and bad news.

Apparently VideoReDo is not compatable with the function extensions I added. The experimental file I posted has my code in it but disabled the function extensions. VideoReDo probably attempts to do a relative seek to a point before the beginning of a file, expecting it to fail. With my extensions, a 32-Bit Seek before the start of a file is now treated as a Seek to a point nearly 4GiB after and does not fail. Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between these situations without limiting the ability to handle files up to 4GiB. I don't know if it is VideoReDo or MSVCR80 that needs fixing. I don't have either one.

I noticed that a number of people downloaded the Experimental File I posted. It was intended as a test only and the Patch is non-functional. Only the current file on my Website is functional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wsxedcrfv

> > Just a quick question. What's the source of 98KRNLUP.exe (Krnl386.exe V .2000) ?

> This fix was created by an anonymous author, based on the official file from MS.

Um, what was the "official" file from microsoft then, or more specificially - for what OS did microsoft create this file?

Since you say it is a modified version of something released by microsoft, I must conclude it was written for some other version of windows other than 9x. Yes?

Is there a KB associated with the original, official file?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It's an original mod by the anonymous patcher, based on his own reverse engineering of the Krnl386.exe V .1999 (which is by MS and has a KB).

Later, when I get home I'll post you the kb number.

But the anonymous patcher, just like LLXX and RLoew, is a quite trustworthy source, although his documentations are scanty. What worries you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction: Bad news and bad news...

...The experimental file I posted has my code in it but I disabled the function extensions...

Awwwwwww RATS!

and I would have gotten away with it too... if it hadn't been for those pesky KIDS!

Edited by whatever420
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wsxedcrfv

> > Since you say it is a modified version of something released by microsoft, I must

> > conclude it was written for some other version of windows other than 9x. Yes?

> > Is there a KB associated with the original, official file?

>

> No. It's an original mod by the anonymous patcher, based on his own reverse

> engineering of the Krnl386.exe V .1999 (which is by MS and has a KB).

> Later, when I get home I'll post you the kb number.

> What worries you?

I'm not worried about the trustworthiness of the patch.

I was wondering what OS Microsoft was targeting with Krnl386.exe V .1999, and what problem it was addressing.

I guess I'm also wondering why a win-98 version wasn't also released by MS - unless this took place after win-98 EOL in June 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turns out I remembered it wrong: v. 1999 is also from the anonymous patcher, who was led to it while fixing another, that one blorked, MS update, look here (a 2006 version of the proper page at MDGx's):

Windows 98/98 SE Cursor + Icon Handling Security Vulnerability Fixes (English):

Microsoft Windows 98/98 SE Q891711.DLL build 4.10.2222 + KB891711.EXE build 4.10.2223 Fix [150 KB].

U891711: Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE/ME Q891711.DLL build 4.10.2223 + KB891711.EXE build 4.10.2225 Fix [108 KB].

Read U891711.TXT FIRST [9 KB]!

STRONGLY RECOMMENDED: U891711 provides the BEST Fix!

Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE KRNL386.EXE build 4.10.1999 Fix [170 KB].

This Fix may correct Kernel errors after installing Cursor + Icon Handling Fix above!

Much water has flown under the bridge, since then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction: Bad news and bad news...

...The experimental file I posted has my code in it but I disabled the function extensions...

Awwwwwww RATS!

and I would have gotten away with it too... if it hadn't been for those pesky KIDS!

Apparently there is a tradeoff.

Use my Patch and have unlimited Seek capability over the range 0 to 4GiB-2, and break some programs. Or use COPY2GB which is more limited but has less impact on compatability.

I do not know of any Programs that would do multi GigaByte relative Seeks with large files so there may not be a need for the improved functionality. I will keep the Patch on my website and add an advisory.

I have no idea why my Patch caused the observed crash with VideoReDo. I would have expected some sort of FIle error or corruption instead. There probably are other bugs in VideoReDO or MSVCR80.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RLoew: I know this is a controversial matter, and a cosmetic one too. But since your patch goes beyond what the one by anonymous does (even if there is the above mentioned caveat) it might be a good idea to bump its version to 2227, beacuse it would help everybody to easily identify both and differentiate them from the unpatched kernel32.dll v.4.10.0.2225, since the file pached by anonymous identifies itself as 2226. Another, less intrusive, but visible way of doing it would be to change the special build from QFE to RRL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RLoew: I know this is a controversial matter, and a cosmetic one too. But since your patch goes beyond what the one by anonymous does (even if there is the above mentioned caveat) it might be a good idea to bump its version to 2227, beacuse it would help everybody to easily identify both and differentiate them from the unpatched kernel32.dll v.4.10.0.2225, since the file pached by anonymous identifies itself as 2226. Another, less intrusive, but visible way of doing it would be to change the special build from QFE to RRL.

I don't think Version bumping is a good idea.

Only a single entity should do Version bumping, namely Microsoft, otherwise Version collisions can occur.

Also any revisions lead to additional Version numbers being required.

Changing QFE to RRL makes more sense and identifies the source of the Update. I will also add a Copyright String with my Patch Version in it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Try Downloading it and testing it again. I have updated it.

If it still doesn't work please post some more details on the errors.

Sorry rloew... I'm still experiencing the same crash :(.

See the attached file for a basic picture of the crash message and a Dr. Watson crash log...

kerncrash.png

While testing the DIAMOND.EXE that Submix8c found for LoneCrusader, I discovered that Microsoft routinely does a relative Seek to -1 when creating Temporaries. As I said before, Negative Seeks cannot be distinguished from Seeks below 4GiB without compromising 4GiB Support. But in this case, 4GiB-1 is the only position that is prohibited regardless, so I added a check to fail this particular Seek. This unbroke DIAMOND and probably a number of other Programs that use this method to Check Temporaries and other Files. Anyone using my KERNEL32 Patch should redownload it and replace the file.

@whatever420 Please redownload and try VIDEOREDO again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rloew...

You'll be happy to know that the newly patched version seems to work for me... ie. no crash when using VideoReDo. :)

Great work!

Are there any caveats related to your patch?

Only the same caveat I added before. But now there are no known problem Programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...