Ptrace problem on amd64? (Was: Re: Warcraft III can't find cdrom)

Gavriel State gav at
Sun Mar 13 02:55:37 CST 2005

Jesse Allen wrote:

>On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:28:36 -0700, Jesse Allen <the3dfxdude at> wrote:
>>Well, even if cedega works, it doesn't help us.  I'm sure their copy
>>protection support is completely different.  When copy protection
>>broke on x86 and wine, the cedega side was completely quiet on it.
>Well, I've learned something new.  They were affected too:
>"2.6.9, 2.6.10 Kernels and Copy Protection"
>This is the first mention by them I have found.  I dunno what to draw
>on this, except, to say that x86-64 should work too.  If wine's and
>cedega's signal handling is pretty much the same, and cedega + x86-64
>works, then there may be something else wrong.
Hi Jesse,

Actually, we first learned about the issue in the November-December 
timeframe, and mentioned it in our 4.2 release notes in December.  In 
general, we still recommend that people use 2.4 kernels, since the 
scheduling changes can cause performance issues.  We started to have a 
look at the problem, but by then Linus was already involved and the 
issue seemed well in hand.  Cedega's signal handling code is certainly 
close enough to Wine at the lowest levels to still be affected by the 
same kind of issues with ptrace.

While we've tested the 2.6.11 ptrace fixes on x86, we had not done so on 
x86-64.  We haven't recieved any reports from users that it's still 
broken, but if the equivalent x86-64 ptrace patch didn't get applied to 
2.6.11, the it presumably could still be broken.  Though I don't know 
how the 64-bit kernel deals with 32-bit code in this respect - is it 
possible that the x86 32 bit pthreads code is being used for 32-bit 
processes even on a 64-bit kernel?

Take care,

Gavriel State, Founder & CTO
TransGaming Technologies Inc.
gav at

Let the games begin!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the wine-devel mailing list