Two kernel object should absolutely never have the same handle ID type.
This can cause incorrect behavior when it comes to retrieving object
types from the handle table. In this case it allows converting a
WritableEvent into a ReadableEvent and vice-versa, which is undefined
behavior, since the object types are not the same.
This also corrects ClearEvent() to check both kernel types like the
kernel itself does.
The kernel uses the handle table of the current process to retrieve the
process that should be used to retrieve certain information. To someone
not familiar with the kernel, this might raise the question of "Ok,
sounds nice, but doesn't this make it impossible to retrieve information
about the current process?".
No, it doesn't, because HandleTable instances in the kernel have the
notion of a "pseudo-handle", where certain values allow the kernel to
lookup objects outside of a given handle table. Currently, there's only
a pseudo-handle for the current process (0xFFFF8001) and a pseudo-handle
for the current thread (0xFFFF8000), so to retrieve the current process,
one would just pass 0xFFFF8001 into svcGetInfo.
The lookup itself in the handle table would be something like:
template <typename T>
T* Lookup(Handle handle) {
if (handle == PSEUDO_HANDLE_CURRENT_PROCESS) {
return CurrentProcess();
}
if (handle == PSUEDO_HANDLE_CURRENT_THREAD) {
return CurrentThread();
}
return static_cast<T*>(&objects[handle]);
}
which, as is shown, allows accessing the current process or current
thread, even if those two objects aren't actually within the HandleTable
instance.
Our implementation of svcGetInfo was slightly incorrect in that we
weren't doing proper error checking everywhere. Instead, reorganize it
to be similar to how the kernel seems to do it.
The opposite of the getter functions, this function sets the limit value
for a particular ResourceLimit resource category, with the restriction
that the new limit value must be equal to or greater than the current
resource value. If this is violated, then ERR_INVALID_STATE is returned.
e.g.
Assume:
current[Events] = 10;
limit[Events] = 20;
a call to this service function lowering the limit value to 10 would be
fine, however, attempting to lower it to 9 in this case would cause an
invalid state error.
This kernel service function is essentially the exact same as
svcGetResourceLimitLimitValue(), with the only difference being that it
retrieves the current value for a given resource category using the
provided resource limit handle, rather than retrieving the limiting
value of that resource limit instance.
Given these are exactly the same and only differ on returned values, we
can extract the existing code for svcGetResourceLimitLimitValue() to
handle both values.
This kernel service function retrieves the maximum allowable value for
a provided resource category for a given resource limit instance. Given
we already have the functionality added to the resource limit instance
itself, it's sufficient to just hook it up.
The error scenarios for this are:
1. If an invalid resource category type is provided, then ERR_INVALID_ENUM is returned.
2. If an invalid handle is provided, then ERR_INVALID_HANDLE is returned (bad thing goes in, bad thing goes out, as one would expect).
If neither of the above error cases occur, then the out parameter is
provided with the maximum limit value for the given category and success
is returned.
This function simply creates a ResourceLimit instance and attempts to
create a handle for it within the current process' handle table. If the
kernal fails to either create the ResourceLimit instance or create a
handle for the ResourceLimit instance, it returns a failure code
(OUT_OF_RESOURCE, and HANDLE_TABLE_FULL respectively). Finally, it exits
by providing the output parameter with the handle value for the
ResourceLimit instance and returning that it was successful.
Note: We do not return OUT_OF_RESOURCE because, if yuzu runs out of
available memory, then new will currently throw. We *could* allocate the
kernel instance with std::nothrow, however this would be inconsistent
with how all other kernel objects are currently allocated.
Cleans out the citra/3DS-specific implementation details that don't
apply to the Switch. Sets the stage for implementing ResourceLimit
instances properly.
While we're at it, remove the erroneous checks within CreateThread() and
SetThreadPriority(). While these are indeed checked in some capacity,
they are not checked via a ResourceLimit instance.
In the process of moving out Citra-specifics, this also replaces the
system ResourceLimit instance's values with ones from the Switch.
Both member functions assume the passed in target process will not be
null. Instead of making this assumption implicit, we can change the
functions to be references and enforce this at the type-system level.
Similar to PR 1706, which cleans up the error codes for the filesystem
code, but done for the kernel error codes. This removes the ErrCodes
namespace and specifies the errors directly. This also fixes up any
straggling lines of code that weren't using the named error codes where
applicable.
* svcBreak now dumps information from the debug buffer passed
info1 and info2 seem to somtimes hold an address to a buffer, this is usually 4 bytes or the size of the int and contains an error code. There's other circumstances where it can be something different so we hexdump these to examine them at a later date.
* Addressed comments
All priority checks are supposed to occur before checking the validity
of the thread handle, we're also not supposed to return
ERR_NOT_AUTHORIZED here.
In the kernel, there isn't a singular handle table that everything gets
tossed into or used, rather, each process gets its own handle table that
it uses. This currently isn't an issue for us, since we only execute one
process at the moment, but we may as well get this out of the way so
it's not a headache later on.
This should be comparing against the queried process' vma_map, not the
current process'. The only reason this hasn't become an issue yet is we
currently only handle one process being active at any time.
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.
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.
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.
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
