Adding shmserver

[Gavriel State]

Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Boris Reisig <boris at boris.ca> writes:
> 
> 
>>I saw previous posts about the shmserver solution. Its an excellent idea but
>>will it be included in wine?
> 
> 
> No it won't. It's a neat hack, but it doesn't preserve the core idea
> behind the server design, which is that processes are properly
> isolated. With the shm server you basically go back to the Win9x days
> where any buggy process can trash the system structures; and I don't
> think that this is where we want to go.

I believe that our design has pretty stringent safeguards against a buggy
process trashing the system structures.  By write-locking the shm area,
the possibility of a buggy app (or wine client side code) overwriting
system structures is virtually nil.

Any server call that is handled 'in place' in a given process could verify
its parameters, unlock the shm area while doing its work, and relock it
before passing control back to the app.

It would take a very buggy (or deliberately malicious) process to cause
a serious issue there.

Furthermore, the architecture still retains the seperate server.  Thus,
it would be possible to restrict shm access to trusted processes.  Users
would then have the ability to decide for themselves whether speeding up
a given app is worth the risk to them.

Take care,
  -Gav

-- 
Gavriel State, CEO & CTO
TransGaming Technologies Inc.
gav at transgaming.com
http://www.transgaming.com/

Let the games begin