Well, Alexandre doesn't like that approach. I still think that it's doable to manage such a thing and still have the wineserver know when something isn't right and respond accordingly and I would still love to be able to convince Alexandre of that! :)
Well, I didn't read what he said that way:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
Using shared memory means you'll need one page per object, because you can't allow a process to corrupt the state of unrelated objects. This doesn't scale.
This is true only if you share memory between multiple clients. If you share memory only between wineserver and individual clients, you need at least one page per client, but you can use the entire page (and most of the overhead can remain in the individual processes, ideally you only need 32 or 64 bits of shared memory per object).
Maybe there's another objection to this approach, but I didn't see it in this thread.