Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 4025012
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 20, 20262026-05-20T10:47:37+00:00 2026-05-20T10:47:37+00:00

As I understand, one can iterate the device stack of WDM devices only from

  • 0

As I understand, one can iterate the device stack of WDM devices only from the bottoms up, because DEVICE_OBJECT has an AttachedDevice member (but not a LowerDevice member). Luckily, the AddDevice callback receives the PhysicalDeviceObject so you can iterate over the entire stack.

From within my filter driver I’m trying to determine whether I’m already filtering a certain device object. (Let’s say I have a legit reason for this. Bear with me.) My idea was to go over every DEVICE_OBJECT in the stack and compare its DriverObject member to mine.

Judging from the existence of IoGetAttachedDeviceReference, I assume just accessing AttachedDevice isn’t a safe thing to do, for the risk of the device suddenly going away. However, IoGetAttachedDeviceReference brings me straight to the top of the stack, which is no good for me.

So, is there a safe way to iterate over a device stack?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-20T10:47:37+00:00Added an answer on May 20, 2026 at 10:47 am

    Correct, you can’t safely walk the AttachedDevice chain unless you can somehow guarantee that the stack will not be torn down (e.g. if you have an active file object referencing the stack). On Win2K this is pretty much your only option.

    On XP and later, the preferred method is actually to walk from the top of the stack down. You can do this by calling IoGetAttachedDeviceReference and then calling IoGetLowerDeviceObject.

    -scott

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I understand that one can raise an event in the class that the implementation
I can understand the use for one level of namespaces. But 3 levels of
I understand the need to test a class that has logic (for instance, one
I understand one uses the bless keyword in Perl inside a class's new method:
I don't understand why one method would work and the other would throw a
I understand SSO as the one time login for all the applications connected. I
There is one thing that I do not understand... Imagine you have a text
One of the best practice is accessing data via stored procedures. I understand why
I noticed that there is one change about ASP.NET Routing. I cannot understand why
As I understand the standard, a trivial destructor is one which is implicitly declared

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.