Re: [PATCH] WinPcap Installer x64 Support

[Kris Katterjohn <katterjohn () gmail com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rob Nicholls wrote:
> > Also, from the MSDN docs[1], it seems that you don't need to reenable
> > the Wow64 stuff unless you want any redirection again because it's
> > thread-specific and won't effect anything else.
>
> I wanted to quickly get something out that supported x64 with minimal
> changes to the existing script (partly to avoid messing anything else up,
> partly to make the modification easier to understand). I was lucky that the
> original script had npf.sys after all of the 32-bit files, so I probably
> could have gotten away with just disabling the redirection at that point in
> the script as there doesn't appear to be anything afterwards that would
> break if the redirection were left disabled, but this might cause some
> confusion if someone other than me were to add (32-bit) files afterwards.
>
> If you want to, I think you could get away with removing the lines that
> re-enable the redirection.
>
> Equally, if people want me to, I could disable the redirection in the two
> .onInit sections, or in the installer/uninstaller sections, and rewrite the
> script to reflect the actual locations of the files. It would probably be
> less confusing to newcomers, but there could be a slight maintenance
> overhead with the script copying the same file into one of two locations
> (although I doubt the WinPcap files will change that much).

Unless you (or anybody) has any strong opinions in favor of the modifications,
I'd like to apply the patch as-is since it's small and working.  I don't see a
need to add any more complexity or maintenance overhead.  Keeping the
re-enable of the Wow64 stuff could avoid any future mistakes, and it
apparently wouldn't help us any to leave it out anyway.

If a newcomer doesn't understand the Wow64 stuff (like I didn't) it will
confuse them either way IMO, so I vote we just keep it simple.  At least until
it's needed for anything else.

> > If you are able to make the changes I've mentioned and you verify that
> > it indeed still works, or let me know that it's really required, I'll
> > be happy to apply this to SVN.
>
> I think it's really required, and I hope this clarified things. I probably
> should have explained it a bit better while submitting the patch as I know
> few of us here have access to Windows x64 systems. I probably could have
> explained it better here too ;-) 

Thanks for the nice explanation, that helped out.

If there are no replies in favor of modifications, I'll probably apply this
tonight or tomorrow (just to give it some time).

> Rob

Thanks again,
Kris Katterjohn

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=s6T2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://SecLists.Org