WineHQ
We have chats with members of the Wine community.

Interviews

24 June 2003
Interview with Martin Wilck by Brian Vincent

Martin Wilck lives in Paderborn, Germany, the town of the former Nixdorf headquarters. By trade he's actually a physicist and studied at the University of Göttingen. He earned his PhD in Leipzig. Martin has been involved with Linux since about 1993. Early in his career he worked on atmospheric modeling. In 2001 he started working for Fujitsu Siemens after realizing his career in physics was too likely not to lead anywhere. Since then, Martin has worked as a Linux system engineer in Paderborn. Next to hacking, he enjoys cooking and music (singing and listening).

BV: You've only been involved with Wine for about a year, but in that time you've completely revamped the Winsock code. How did you get involved?

Martin: Actually, I did not revamp all of the code. Most of my work was to get a working implementation of Windows-style asynchronous I/O over sockets in Wine.

I had to port a piece of our company's server-management software from NT to Linux.

When the porting project was started, we decided to use Winelib to do the porting. This decision was great for me because, besides Winelib being a fine porting tool, it gave me the opportunity to contribute to Free Software as part of my job. I'd describe this as an ideal situation for a programmer who is concerned about Free Software, and I enjoyed it as the best time I had so far in my professional life. I must admit, though, that may initial expectations to finish the porting within a month were way too optimistic.

Part of the code was the implementation of a proprietary network protocol. This implementation was based heavily on asynchronous socket I/O, which I had to implement in Wine in order to do the porting.

On my way through the Winsock code, I happened to fix some other issues and quickly became the Winsock maintainer, mostly because nobody else was interested, I guess.

Unfortunately, my porting project is not yet finished. The priorities in our group changed and I am busy other duties. Moreover, some aspects of the software turned out to be very hard to port through Wine (security-related stuff, based very strongly on Windows security concepts, RPC etc.). Sometimes I wonder if I had come further by using something else instead of Wine, but I doubt it.

BV: What was the end result of the project? Did you decide to do a native port, or were plans to support Linux abandoned?

Martin: Well, it was postponed until who-knows-when. The main reason was that I had other tasks that prevented me from getting the job done. Being self-critical, another reason may have been that I tried to push all the missing functionality into Wine rather than simply modifying our code which would have been faster for some parts of the project.

BV: How hard was it to convince your boss to let you contribute to free software?

Martin: It wasn't hard at all. Doing the porting natively would have been a massive project because the code used a lot of Windows-specific functionality. The commercial alternatives were out of the question because the software is a free (as in beer) add-on for our hardware, thus we couldn't afford expensive run-time licenses. Moreover, using Winelib gave us the opportunity to port our code with a minimum set of changes in the code itself. This was desirable in terms of future code maintenance.

Actually, I think a number of people in our company liked the fact that the company name was seen in a well-known forum of the free software community. My involvement with Wine was mostly welcome because it contributed to Fujitsu Siemens' activities for Open Source and Linux.

On the other hand, I should clarify that making our code itself open source was never considered.

BV: Has anyone else in your company worked with other free software projects?

Martin: We have had a number of small but important contributions to the Linux kernel. Most importantly, the first "high memory" patch came from my colleague Gerhard Wichert. Apart from that, I am not sure. Our parent company Fujitsu has a strong commitment to Open Source and Linux, e.g. in the Open Source Development Lab .

BV: Did you have much prior Windows programming experience? Or did you come from the Unix world?

Martin: Entirely Unix/Linux. I had no Windows programming experience at all. Actually, I haven't much Windows user experience, either.

BV: Could you briefly describe the services that Winsock provides?

Martin: Winsock provides a programming interface (API) to network protocols. It is the Windows counterpart of the Berkeley socket API that is used for network programming on Linux and most other Unixes. Winsock started as an add-on product for Windows 3.1 AFAIK. The Winsock 2 interface introduced many features that go beyond the classical Berkeley interface, like asynchronous IO, stackable protocols, support for 3rd-party protocols ("transports") and many more.

BV: How well does the Winsock API map to Unix/Linux functionality?

Martin: The Winsock 1 API is mostly a subset of Berkeley sockets. However, the above mentioned Winsock 2 extensions are, at least in part, difficult map to Unix functionality. Winsock 1 contained some Windows-typical extensions for inter-process communication (like events and messages) that are straightforward to map to standard Wine functionality.

BV: Previous to your work Wine only had a Winsock 1 implementation. What's the differences between Winsock 1 and Winsock 2?

Martin: It isn't true that Wine had only Winsock 1 before I started. I just added a significant part of Winsock 2, namely asynchronous IO.

BV: A lot of this stuff seems like you'd need to debug over-the-wire. Did you spend a lot of time in a debugger and looking at traces?

Martin: In a debugger, no. I never figured out how to work with winedbg properly :-). I looked a lot at traces, though, and tcpdump'ed quite a bit.

BV: One application that's often talked about is getting the AOL client to run. Have you ever looked at it? I seem to recall some Winsock issues were involved.

Martin: I have never been an AOL user.

There was a request by a Lindows guy a year ago. He sent me some traces and I looked at them, but I couldn't identify a Winsock problem. I closed the associated Bugzilla entry after 2 months of inactivity. I suspect that the communications problem was at a higher layer than winsock proper.

BV: Have you worked on any other parts of Wine?

Martin: Small contributions for advapi32 and netapi32. Ultimately, these were aimed at the same target (our code).

BV: You did some work integrating with Samba. What exactly were you trying to accomplish?

Martin: I never really worked on that, just tried to check out the options. Windows internally relies on RPC calls for a lot of its functionality, and Samba implements a large part of the RPC interface. At the time I was looking at the netapi32 DLL. Almost all calls in this DLL should be mapped to RPC calls. Wine currently doesn't do that, leading to a lot of hacking and guessing what the correct behavior should be.

I think Greg Turner's work is very promising in the RPC area. However for specific parts of the API I was looking at, the most important question is how (if at all) to map security-related concepts like users, groups, and permissions between Windows and Unix. This is rather a philosophical or policy-related problem than a technical problem.

Because Wine is a huge beast and wasn't developed with security in mind in the first place, it is a very bad idea to run it (or even a part of it) with superuser privileges. That also means that Windows processes running in Wine will never be able to do anything requiring more than ordinary user privileges (like changing the user ID).

This means that Wine's field of applicability will remain limited to Win95-style end user applications, because Wine's security capabilities are similar to those of Win95. That's not too bad because this is what Wine was made for, and what most people want. Problems may only arise if future Windows end user software developed on Win2k, XP and successors becomes more aware of these Windows features and uses them more extensively.

For system and server software, it means that most likely only small parts of them can be ported using Wine or Winelib.

BV: Do you think Wine will eventually have to use Samba for authentication purposes? Or is it something that could be developed within Wine?

Martin: Wine can do nothing more than 'pseudo-authentication'. This is because there are no real security features in Wine (see above). Samba is not necessary for that pseudo-authentication. I once sent in a proof-of-concept patch using the PAM libraries for authentication. Samba may be added to the picture using the "winbind" daemon, giving Wine applications access to a Windows Domain user base, but only indirectly through native Unix library calls.

Windows does a lot more than authentication over RPC. For example, Windows associates a large number of properties with a (network) user account and provides functions to retrieve them. The Unix world has no equivalent for these properties. Windows also retrieves information about other hosts through RPC, and much more.

Much of this RPC functionality is implemented in Samba. Wine can't directly link to Samba libraries because of license issues (Samba is GPL). Currently, there is no other interface available for accessing this Samba functionality except for linking, and it appears it isn't meant by the Samba team to be accessed. So it appears that most of the RPC functionality has to be reimplemented in Wine (unless the license issues are somehow settled which I doubt). In that case, it remains unclear how a running Samba server and a Wine program can interact given that they might be trying to use the same TCP/IP ports.

BV: That could be a serious area of contention. Considering that both would likely need need to do similar things (authentication, file IO) it's shame a library of functions couldn't be shared by both. Of course, what would be really nice is if the Samba folks could do all the mysterious RPC work and then Wine could just hook into it. Do you think this will be a problem in the future? Are there any good ways to work around it?

Martin: This can only come to pass if the Samba folks decide to make their libraries LGPL'd, which I doubt they will. Actually, samba is very much self-contained and does not provide a library API at this time. I can't tell what their future plans are, but it appears they have other priorities.

Greg Turner would be the person to ask here, he used to be the bold volunteer to tackle RPC in Wine.

But you are right that this is a serious issue, especially because RPC becomes more and more important with newer Windows releases.

BV: What area of Wine development do you see as needing the most work?

Martin: In the short term, the attention must focus on getting the popular applications working well and fast, and this is what the Wine people are currently doing. I consider it especially crucial to get those typical "small applications" like garden or wedding planners, tax software, etc. supported - the stuff people download from the net and expect to work nicely. I have too little insight in the UI areas of Wine to tell where most work is needed there.

In the long run, a solution for the RPC interfaces must be found because it is a very important IPC mechanism on Windows. I wish Greg all luck and success for his efforts in that direction, but I'd consider it a post-1.0 issue.

As for my field of work, the Winsock 2 API is far from complete, especially the bottom side (the "service provider" programming interface or "SPI") is completely missing. That seems to be a minor issue for getting applications to run, though.

Perhaps the most important issue is making the documentation more comprehensive and up-to-date in order to make it easier for volunteers to get started and contribute. I am talking about developer documentation here; companies like CodeWeavers have already succeeded in making Wine a positive user experience.

BV: You recently announced you wouldn't have time to work on Wine for a while. Any plans to contribute in the future?

Martin: Yes, most definitely. I am still around for fixing Winsock bugs, although I currently do not follow the developers mailing list (mail me directly if there are any issues!). I don't promise any more because I want be able to keep my promises.

BV: Thanks for the interview!

Martin: Thanks for interviewing me :-)