Archiv für October, 2007

Integration Hurdles for EXE Custom Actions

Saturday, 20. October 2007 at 4:35 pm

A while back, two sets of engineers were arguing whether simply calling an EXE custom action would be good enough for Windows Installer based package.  The first team with the EXE didn’t want to do the work to move to Windows Installer but they really wanted the second team to take a dependency.  The team based on Windows Installer said the integration problems with calling an EXE was so great they would not integrate without a Windows Installer package. 


As an attempt at arbitrating the disagreement, it was requested the Window Installer team provide an analysis.  A quick paper was written to capture the analysis.  This paper has since been shared in other similar circumstances. 


In a recent instance, Microsoft blogger Aaron Stebner suggested this quick paper would make a good blog.  Here it is.  Hope it’s useful ;^)


Integration Hurdles for EXE Custom Actions


Overview and Scope


Windows Installer (MSI) architecture was designed to work best when all the installation behaviors are native to the Windows Installer. When the native behavior (called Standard Actions) are insufficient, there is a way to provide extend behavior (called Custom Actions). Custom Actions come in various base types that are differentiated on the way the Windows Installer service instantiates the custom action in the appropriate sandbox. Among the types of custom actions are executable files and dynamic link libraries.


Bare custom actions are risky to the integrity of a Windows Installer base install and this document will consider the risks.


This document will not dive deep into the architecture or the possibilities to improve the custom action architecture in the future.


Integration Hurdles


The installation integrity risk running EXE custom actions come in a number of varieties


 



















































































































































 


Problem


 


Description


 


Mitigation


(by consumer of EXE)


Crash


Bad EXEs can bring down the custom action sandbox


None


Binary Dependency


Bad EXEs can require technologies that are not in the system at the time of the install.  Specific instance: MSXML custom actions required MFC 7 but it didn’t exist on machines.


None


Load


Bad EXEs can expect to load DLLs from the path but the path could be customized by the user on the machine.


None


Rights


Bad EXEs can require more rights (e.g. admin) than the package thus breaking scenarios (per-user)


None


Logging


EXEs do not have access to the Windows Installer Log so there is no integrated troubleshooting.


None (best effort, build DLL that provides log path to EXE and puts the log next to or into the Windows Installer log)


UI


EXE do not have access to the UILevel so they do not know whether it’s OK to display UI.


None (best effort, build DLL that reads UILevel and alters command line)


Progress


EXEs do not have access to the widows installer progress bar.


None (best effort, add entries to the ReserveCost table)


Hangs


EXE may hang and neither the Windows Installer nor the user has no way of knowing whether the install is hung or just taking a long time.


None (best effort, build DLL that calls CreateProcess and WaitForMultipleObjects)


Costing


EXE do not have any way of being integrated into the Windows Installer costing


None (best effort, build DLL that add ticks to the progress bar)


Rollback


- rollback behavior
- decision when to execute rollback (did failure occur in the FWD case thus calling the Backward case is extraneous?)


Bad EXE do not support rollback.


None (best effort, build DLL that calls EXE uninstall if exists)


Transparency and Predictability


EXEs are not data driven from the contents of the MSI thus are not transparent to users, especially admins.


None


Uninstall


Bad EXEs do not support uninstall


None (best effort, build DLL that calls EXE uninstall if exists)


Uninstall Rollback


Bad EXEs do not support uninstall rollback


None (best effort, build DLL that calls EXE install)


Repair/Resiliency


Bad EXEs do not support repair


None (best effort, build DLL that calls EXE install again)


First Run


Bad EXEs mix per machine installation with per-user installation that should be invoked at first run


None


Error Codes


Bad EXEs do not provide return codes or have return codes that do not match the custom action return code expectations.


None (best effort, best effort, build DLL that interprets errors returned from the EXE and returns the appropriate value)


Watson


EXE failures are difficult to map to Watson buckets (for teams that have implemented Setup Watson)


None (best effort, build DLL that initializes Setup Watson with the needed context to differentiate EXE error)


PSS Costs


When an EXE fails, the supports costs are absorbed by the enclosing product


None (best effort, build DLL that records needed context to differentiate EXE error)


Localization


Does installation or manipulation by the EXE cause strings to be written to the system?  If yes, how are the strings differentiated?


None


Selection


Some EXEs have different levels that can be installed (Minimum, Full).


None (best effort, build DLL that maps UI or feature selection to different levels in EXE)


Terminal Server and SMS


Bad EXEs do not run correctly on Terminal Server where there is no user logged in and will not have a user hive


None


Group Policy (Publishing, assignment)


<missing this context>


None


Debugging


There is no way to debug custom actions in EXE from MSI.


None (best effort, build DLL that uses dll debugging then alter EXE call from inside DLL)


Access to Database


EXEs are unable to access the database


None (best effort, build DLL that uses dll method to access the database)


Run From Source or Cache


EXEs are unable to be configured to run from source


None


Servicing


EXEs are more difficult to confirm they contain the right security fixes when servicing


None


Help


EXEs that contain 2.0 User Education integration may not have MSI’s namespace parents configured at the time they are called


None (best effort, move the EXE to a different location in the sequence after the html help custom actions)


Events


EXEs that produce events during install will appear outside the MSI context


None


Customization


Numerous third party tools exist to customize an install to the needs of a particular specialized user (usually LORGs)


None


File In Use


There is no way for a custom action to inform the user that files they want to manipulate are in use


None


Pending File Renames, File in Use, and Rollback


If a EXE custom action replaces files that are held in use and a MoveFileEx causes those files to end up in Pending File Renames, then the install rolls back it’s possible that the files will still be changed on the next boot.


None


Detection of When to Install (Resiliency v Rollback)


A rollback during repair or reinstall could cause premature removal of a EXE install that existed on the machine before MSI was installed.  If one implements rollback, one has to implement foolproof detection for existing installs of the component and not run the EXE package if the same version of EXE is already on the machine.  Otherwise, a cancel or failure in the MSI could cause a preexisting installation of the EXE component to be removed.


None


Reboot


If the EXE requires a reboot, there is no way to communicate the need for the REBOOT to the MSI


None


Cancel


As EXEs can not call MsiProcessMessage, they are unable to respond to the cancel button.


None (best effort, build DLL that calls MsiProcessMessage)


Watson


EXEs that crash may cause a Watson dialog during the install


None


Test Scenarios


When testing the MSI that contains this EXE, one needs to test the following



  • Deployment technologies


    • Group Policy Software Distribution


      • Publishing

      • Assignment

    • SMS deployment

    • Install from network share/media

    • Install from local cache

    • Hard drive imaging

  • Customer segments


    • Retail install

    • OEM pre-install

    • Enterprise deployment

  • User types


    • No user (install during winlogon, install by SMS agent) - these will not have a user hive

    • Lockdown user

    • Regular user

    • LUA without registry virtualization

    • Admin user

[Author: Robert Flaming]
This posting is provided “AS IS” with no warranties, and confers no rights. Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm.

Original post by Windows Installer Team

von

What is the protocol for releasing beta software that depends on Windows Installer 4.5 beta?

Thursday, 4. October 2007 at 5:02 pm

A question been raised in a couple of contexts is the protocol for shipping a beta on beta software.


Question
What is the protocol for shipping beta software that depends on Windows Installer 4.5 beta?


Answer


We encourage producing a beta software that integrates the features of Windows Installer 4.5 beta.  There is no license that allows redistributing the Windows Installer 4.5 beta.  This does lead to the challenge of how to release a coupled beta.


During the Windows Installer 4.5 Beta period, the most resilient design is to enable the features for Windows Installer 4.5 on a “lights up” basis.  This means that when Windows Installer 4.5 is present on the machine, the software include the new enhancements and when it is not, there is a fallback path that works on the shipped versions of the Windows Installer.  This is a bit more work but customers report they benefit from this flexibility.


For our mutual customers that want to try both your beta software and the Windows Installer 4.5 beta together, we ask that you point your customers to our beta site on http://connect.microsoft.com.  While we recognize is a bit of an additional hassle, we’ve found that beta customers are more resilient than most to the hassles of a beta.  Further, this enables problems found in the Windows Installer 4.5 beta to be directly reported and reported and tracked through the http://connect.microsoft.com tools.


Some have noted a practice in other parts of Microsoft called a “go live” license.  The terms of a “go live” license are such that they do not Windows Installer 4.5 beta case.  The coupled beta approach with “lights up” functionality and a redirect to the Windows Installer 4.5 beta site on http://connect.microsoft.com is the preferred solution.


[Author: Robert Flaming]
This posting is provided “AS IS” with no warranties, and confers no rights. Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm.

Original post by Windows Installer Team

Abgelegt von MSI4.5, Beta, Tools Vendors
von

What happened to Windows Installer 4.1?

Monday, 1. October 2007 at 4:29 pm

For a time, there was a release named Windows Installer 4.1 on the MSDN topic Released Versions of Windows Installer that was associated with Windows Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008.  When this reference to 4.1 was removed, it naturally lead to the question: what happened to Windows Installer 4.1?


The back story here starts about this time last year when we were finishing up Windows Installer 4.0 in Windows Vista and asking ourselves “What’s next?”. At that time, we didn’t know the bar for features in Windows Vista SP1 and next major release of Windows.  For those of you watching Microsoft closely at the time, you may recall this is when there was a lot of change going on in the upper echelons of Windows



We also had the seeds of an out of band release were germinating in the organization.


In this fluid context, we had to figure out names for what appeared to be three simultaneous efforts from the Windows Installer team.  Knowing none of the feature and release criteria, our best guess at the time was that Windows Vista SP1 would ship first, an out of band release would ship next, and then the next full version of Windows would be our focus.  With this guess at timelines, we choose the names Windows Installer 4.1, Windows Installer 4.5, and Windows Installer 5.0 as the labels for the next three buckets of work from the Windows Installer team.


It just so happened that at this same time, the Windows Vista version of the Platform SDK was finishing up.  Given our best guess was that we’d be doing significant work in Windows Vista SP1, we added the reference to Windows Installer 4.1 for anticipatory completeness.


What changed was that the new guard in Windows had a very different bar for the Vista SP than had been in practice for previous releases (at least in my memory).  Generally there is lip service to no large feature work in a SP but this time folks listened.  Big feature adds were heavily scrutinized.  The items we wanted to fix in the SP, UAC tweaks, were big feature by the new bar. 


When the UAC tweaks were rejected for Vista SP1, the justification for 4.1 faded as there were no new features in the Windows Installer in Vista SP1.


[Author: Robert Flaming]
This posting is provided “AS IS” with no warranties, and confers no rights. Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm.

Original post by Windows Installer Team

von