Now that the changes clarifying the address spaces has been merged, we
can wrap the checks that the kernel performs when mapping shared memory
(and other forms of memory) into its own helper function and then use
those within MapSharedMemory and UnmapSharedMemory to complete the
sanitizing checks that are supposed to be done.
swap.h only needs to be present in the header for the type aliases and
definitions, it's not actually needed in the cpp files though. input.h
is just unused entirely in xpad.h
These classes are non-trivial and are definitely going to be changed in
the future, so we default these to prevent issues with forward
declarations, and to keep the compiler from inlining tear-down code.
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).
Lioncash