The data retrieved in these cases are ultimately chiefly owned by either
the RegisteredCache instance itself, or the filesystem factories. Both
these should live throughout the use of their contained data. If they
don't, it should be considered an interface/design issue, and using
shared_ptr instances here would mask that, as the data would always be
prolonged after the main owner's lifetime ended.
This makes the lifetime of the data explicit and makes it harder to
accidentally create cyclic references. It also makes the interface
slightly more flexible than the previous API, as a shared_ptr can be
created from a unique_ptr, but not the other way around, so this allows
for that use-case if it ever becomes necessary in some form.
So, one thing that's puzzled me is why the kernel seemed to *not* use
the direct code address ranges in some cases for some service functions.
For example, in svcMapMemory, the full address space width is compared
against for validity, but for svcMapSharedMemory, it compares against
0xFFE00000, 0xFF8000000, and 0x7FF8000000 as upper bounds, and uses
either 0x200000 or 0x8000000 as the lower-bounds as the beginning of the
compared range. Coincidentally, these exact same values are also used in
svcGetInfo, and also when initializing the user address space, so this
is actually retrieving the ASLR extents, not the extents of the address
space in general.
This should help diagnose crashes easier and prevent many users thinking that a game is still running when in fact it's just an audio thread still running(this is typically not killed when svcBreak is hit since the game expects us to do this)
A fairly basic service function, which only appears to currently support
retrieving the process state. This also alters the ProcessStatus enum to
contain all of the values that a kernel process seems to be able of
reporting with regards to state.
Neither of these functions alter the ownership of the provided pointer,
so we can simply make the parameters a reference rather than a direct
shared pointer alias. This way we also disallow passing incorrect memory values like
nullptr.
These only exist to ferry data into a Process instance and end up going
out of scope quite early. Because of this, we can just make it a plain
struct for holding things and just std::move it into the relevant
function. There's no need to make this inherit from the kernel's Object
type.
Regular value initialization is adequate here for zeroing out data. It
also has the benefit of not invoking undefined behavior if a non-trivial
type is ever added to the struct for whatever reason.
This adds the missing address range checking that the service functions
do before attempting to map or unmap memory. Given that both service
functions perform the same set of checks in the same order, we can wrap
these into a function and just call it from both functions, which
deduplicates a little bit of code.
HandheldVariant is for specific games which expect handheld controllers to be at position 8(kirby), however this doesn't fix all games as some games require handhelds to be at position 0(snipperclips)
There's no real need to use a shared pointer in these cases, and only
makes object management more fragile in terms of how easy it would be to
introduce cycles. Instead, just do the simple thing of using a regular
pointer. Much of this is just a hold-over from citra anyways.
It also doesn't make sense from a behavioral point of view for a
process' thread to prolong the lifetime of the process itself (the
process is supposed to own the thread, not the other way around).
When loading NROs, svcBreak is called to signal to the debugger that a new "module" is loaded. As no debugger is technically attached we shouldn't be killing the programs execution.
Hardware tests show that trying to unmap an unmapped buffer already should always succeed. Hardware test was tested up to 32 iterations of attempting to unmap
This was the result of a typo accidentally introduced in
e51d715700. This restores the previous
correct behavior.
The behavior with the reference was incorrect and would cause some games
to fail to boot.
Conceptually, it doesn't make sense for a thread to be able to persist
the lifetime of a scheduler. A scheduler should be taking care of the
threads; the threads should not be taking care of the scheduler.
If the threads outlive the scheduler (or we simply don't actually
terminate/shutdown the threads), then it should be considered a bug
that we need to fix.
Attributing this to balika011, as they opened #1317 to attempt to fix
this in a similar way, but my refactoring of the kernel code caused
quite a few conflicts.
Many of the member variables of the thread class aren't even used
outside of the class itself, so there's no need to make those variables
public. This change follows in the steps of the previous changes that
made other kernel types' members private.
The main motivation behind this is that the Thread class will likely
change in the future as emulation becomes more accurate, and letting
random bits of the emulator access data members of the Thread class
directly makes it a pain to shuffle around and/or modify internals.
Having all data members public like this also makes it difficult to
reason about certain bits of behavior without first verifying what parts
of the core actually use them.
Everything being public also generally follows the tendency for changes
to be introduced in completely different translation units that would
otherwise be better introduced as an addition to the Thread class'
public interface.
In some games (Splatoon 2 and Splatoon 2 Splatfest World Premiere, notably), pass offset=0 and count=2047 into the ListAddOnContent method which should return all DLCs for the current title. The (presumably) intended behavior is to successfully return a empty array but because of a < v. <= in an if statement, a failure error code was returned causing these games to svcBreak. This fixes that if statement.
Now that we have all of the rearranging and proper structure sizes in
place, it's fairly trivial to implement svcGetThreadContext(). In the
64-bit case we can more or less just write out the context as is, minus
some minor value sanitizing. In the 32-bit case we'll need to clear out
the registers that wouldn't normally be accessible from a 32-bit
AArch32 exectuable (or process).
David