Access Violation in ole32 dll after installing MS09-012 on Windows 2000 servers

On windows 2000 SP4 machines, you may experience AVs (C0000005 exceptions)  in SQL Server or any application using msdtcprx.dll after installing the update MS09-012. This is seen only on the machines with ole32.dll version earlier than 5.0.2195.7036

You will not see this issue if the server has Microsoft security bulletin MS06-018 OR COM+ rollup 32 OR subsequent rollups

Workaround

To avoid running into this issue, install MS06-018 OR COM+ rollup 37 prior to installing MS09-012

More information

Due to a code change in msdtcprx.dll, it was running into the following known issue:

An access violation (C0000005) occurs if you call the CoWaitForMultipleHandles function before you call either the CoInitialize function or the CoInitializeEx function. This is first addressed in COM+ roll up 32

Below is the call stack of the AV in SQL Server

0:000> kL 100
ChildEBP RetAddr
061df560 03c30136 OLE32!CoWaitForMultipleHandles+0x4e
061df598 03c3f96c msdtcprx!CITransaction::InitForImport+0x1a6
061df5c0 009a2f53 msdtcprx!CITransactionImport::Import+0xec
061df808 009a831a sqlservr!CDTCState::ImportXact+0xe2
061df828 00796d44 sqlservr!FullXact::GetDTCXactByPropInfo+0x1e
061df884 009a27c8 sqlservr!CMsqlXact::EnlistDTCXact+0xce
061df8a8 009a41a2 sqlservr!CMsqlXact::EnlistDTCXact+0x3a
061dfa48 009a52d2 sqlservr!rm_ods_handler_body+0xa9a
061dfa7c 00425ace sqlservr!rm_ods_handler+0x67
061dfefc 41075309 sqlservr!process_commands+0x171
061dff6c 41074978 ums!ProcessWorkRequests+0x2d9
061dff80 7c34940f ums!ThreadStartRoutine+0x98
061dffb4 7c57b3bc msvcr71!_threadstart+0x6c
061dffec 00000000 KERNEL32!BaseThreadStart+0x52

To get the latest version of ole32, install COM+ rollup 37

Note: Support for Windows 2000 ends on July 13, 2010! Please visit the End-of-Support Center Solution Center for details.

Comments

• Anonymous
  July 20, 2009
  The comment has been removed
• Anonymous
  August 21, 2009
  Hi Bart, Thanks for getting in touch with us. As you may already noticed, we re-published this article on the same day. Hope it helped you resolve your issue. Distributed Services Team