DOS ain't dead

With DPMI into protect mode and back - EDIT: example (Developers)

posted by ecm  , Düsseldorf, Germany, 30.08.2010, 21:51

> > > > > The only way is just to terminate the application.
> > > > Correct.
> > > Not that much.
> > Well tell us.
>
> NO I won't. No need to duplicate Japheth's work, see above.

Using RM callbacks (which I did use too, but that's not the point) doesn't properly remove the "DPMI process" or "context", so you're not really back. In that state, it might be a bad idea to terminate the current DOS process. (Japheth probably knows more about that, regarding HDPMI.)

> > How bout you just execute your own executable?
>
> Bad hack.

Right, but it works well enough if you get the name.

> > Besides, this particular issue doesn't exist for a Windows process and
> > without a problem to work around, faking a child isn't useful anyway.
>
> Strange, how do you execute 3rd party crappy code then ? And why did
> Firefox ban crappy plugins (most notably Flash) into a separate process ?

I would think Firefox is not a DOS or DPMI program, so that this would not be the particular issue that we talked about.

> > In other news: lol if u b trollin b trollin r8 dude
>
> Is it 64-bit code ? Does it compile ???

Why would it even be 64-bit code. And yes, it does compile:

D:\>debug
Executed initcont
-a
0F88:0100 mov eax,cr0
0F88:0103 inc eax
0F88:0105 mov cr0,eax
0F88:0108
-u 100l8
0F88:0100 0F20C0            MOV     EAX,CR0
0F88:0103 6640              INC     EAX
0F88:0105 0F22C0            MOV     CR0,EAX
-


See? (True, it's not optimal and all the other preparations to properly go into PM are still missing, but better than not compiling at all.)

(EDIT: No, not all text that contains the token "r8" (or any other register name) is code.)

> > (BTW for ring 0 access I prefer JLMs.)
>
> Sure, and this works without external files.

Sure, and going into PM on your own works with an EMM, XMM or DPMI host installed.

---
l

Complete thread:

• With DPMI into protect mode and back - Laaca, 13.08.2010, 10:36
  • With DPMI into protect mode and back - EDIT: example - ecm, 13.08.2010, 14:30
    • With DPMI into protect mode and back - EDIT: example - DOS386, 26.08.2010, 09:18
      • With DPMI into protect mode and back - EDIT: example - ecm, 26.08.2010, 14:35
        • With DPMI into protect mode and back - EDIT: example - DOS386, 27.08.2010, 03:33
          • With DPMI into protect mode and back - EDIT: example - ecm, 30.08.2010, 21:51
            • With DPMI into protect mode and back | physical memory - DOS386, 06.09.2010, 20:08
              • With DPMI into protect mode and back | physical memory - ecm, 07.09.2010, 17:04
                • With DPMI into protect mode and back | physical memory - DOS386, 08.09.2010, 00:51
                  • With DPMI into protect mode and back | physical memory - ecm, 08.09.2010, 20:53
                    • With DPMI into protect mode and back | physical memory - DOS386, 11.09.2010, 01:02
                      • With DPMI into protect mode and back | physical memory - ecm, 11.09.2010, 01:25
  • With DPMI into protect mode and back - Japheth, 18.08.2010, 08:04
    • With DPMI into protect mode and back - Japheth, 18.10.2010, 11:17
      • With DPMI into protect mode and back - Rugxulo, 18.10.2010, 23:07
        • With DPMI into protect mode and back - Japheth, 19.10.2010, 09:58
          • With DPMI into protect mode and back - Rugxulo, 19.10.2010, 10:09
            • With DPMI into protect mode and back - Japheth, 19.10.2010, 10:20
          • Possible CWSDPMI design flaw - Japheth, 19.10.2010, 17:59