https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44912
--- Comment #5 from Anastasius Focht focht@gmx.net --- Hello Derek,
thanks for your contribution. I think Wine-Staging folks would be happy to pick up your work and refine it for potential upstream inclusion. Having process creation in proper place would benefit various other apps which rely on this in their native API sandboxing scheme. I have some tickets open related to that topic for a long time.
I figured out you imported a number of commits from Zebediah Figura's github repo: https://github.com/zfigura/wine/commits/master while your own github repo is fork from mainline Wine. That was a bit confusing to me as I tried to locate the sha1 of the cherry-picks. You should be more explicit on the origin of commits (cherry-picks) in the commit message if the are from different remotes and not the parent of your fork to enhance the traceability. Also it would be nice if you link your commits to Wine Bugzilla tickets. Not mandatory but it helps the traceability. See here for example: https://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commit/0799550075654094a3bed080aac722...
In general your current work consists of:
Putting (native) process creation infrastructure in proper place:
* Add ntdll equivalent for MODULE_get_binary_info -> bug 44912 (this) * Add ntdll infrastructure for create_process -> bug 44912 (this) * Add ntdll create_process and more infrastructure -> bug 44912 (this) * Implement RtlCreateUserProcess (plus for infrastructure) -> bug 44912 (this)
Fixing some issues with BattlEye 'BEDaisy' kernel driver
* [ntoskrnl] Add stub for PsGetProcessWow64Process -> bug 45664 * Use Executable Memory for ExAllocatePoolWithTag -> no bug report?
I think I will create a bug report for the last one too (covers https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2018-September/thread.html#13147...)
Regards