Kernel interface for Wine synchronization primitives

[Derek Lesho]

On 1/17/21 7:42 PM, Zebediah Figura wrote:

> According to my reasoning, in order to really have PulseEvent work
> right, we need explicit scheduler support. That does bring up the option
> of having a "scheduler", i.e. managing wait-queues, in user space.
> Unfortunately this still doesn't help with the shared memory problem—in
> fact, now it's worse, because processes can die while holding locks that
> the scheduler needs. This means that wineserver itself—the "kernel" of
> Wine applications—can be broken by a misbehaving process, which is
> absolutely unacceptable for Wine.

Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but couldn't wineserver 
wait on a thread's destruction and run a fallback cleanup routine, if a 
thread terminated chaotically?

In regards to the problem of bugs having worse effects and being easier 
to happen here, isn't the surface area of these APIs small enough to 
keep a close eye on in maintenance?  I guess my question is, do you 
think a stable solution is possible, given enough work, or would this be 
a hacky solution doomed to run up against countless unforeseen bugs from 
the start?