17 Feb
2006
17 Feb
'06
8:31 p.m.
What Alex said is quite logical.
Alex Ionescu wrote:
Timo Kreuzer wrote:
--
Listen to Americas Debate Radio at 9 o'clock eastren on Wensdays!
http://radio.americasdebate.net/listen/low (Dial Up)
http://radio.americasdebate.net/listen/ (BroadBand)
Call in at:
1-888-DEBATE-5
1-912-342-2345
Skype: callto://americasdebate
rené Tournois @mailhost.geldorp.nl schrieb:
I think this only applies to the bootsector, wich has asm directly
taken from disassemblies in it.
WINE code is supposedly "clean as crystal" yet their low-level native
modules/kernel libraries are full of magic numbers. All my kernel code
is reversed and doesn't have a single magic constant.
At 15:11 17/02/2006 -0000, you wrote:
I apologize for this second intrusion, but i have some difficulties
to really understand this:
It's a comments on "...that there is still no Microsoft-Code found in
ROS."
It is true that there is *no* leaked source code inside reactos.
Define 'MS code'. If we're talking
about leaked source code, then
that is
true.
But you said elsewhere that there was _no_ leaked source, so that
the only problem should be with your next words:
If
we're talking about small chunks of assembly from dissasembled MS
binaries, then that is what the audit hopes to uncover and remove.
Once the
audit is complete, we can also say we know this to be true, at the
moment we
don't know.
... and this one sounds strange to me, because i saw several messages
talking in terms of *year* (?!), for the audit.
Well, i just downloaded the ReactOS Sources, and searched for all the
Files having an "__asm__" Statements inside, after having saved in a
[...]
I stopped there, because i said to me that it was
stupid to read that
way, and that i was possibly missing the Files of real interrest for
the Audit. But all i have seen does not explain to me, how it could
ever take one year for proof-reading so few, and so small, "__asm__"
statements.
What am i missing?
I think what Ged was talking about was disassemblies converted into
C. And this can be found by looking for typical things of that kind
of code:
- Magical number inside C code. Normally constants are used or the
numbers are commented or really obvios. But when you don't know why
there's a constant 0x2342 then you don't really know how to call it.
In disc.c there's a constant called PARTITION_MAGIC ;-) - excessive gotos: You would normally not use any
gotos, but it can
be hard to identify complex structures of for, if, while,... inside
asm code, so you do it like it's done in asm: with gotos. It doesn't
look good, but it works.
A good reverser such as myself can identify the complex structures. A
bad coder can implement clean code with lots of gotos.
In the end, one of the best ways to figure out if something is
reversed is not the code style, but the code quality. You tell
yourself "Ok..so here we have a low-level kernel function that no
driver out there uses, and which has absolutely no test case, but has
500 lines of perfectly implemented code which seem to magically know
how to handle every combination of parameters, flags and situations.
How was this coded?"
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev