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.
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.
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