On Sat Mar 8 09:48:57 2025 +0000, Jinoh Kang wrote:
That is not to say I have an opinion about this, strong or otherwise; I haven't reviewed the MR anyway. That said it could eliminate some extra `top_locator` fields and so on.
Yes, I was mostly thinking about how we approach the problem, not `gSharedInfo` itself.
User handles are different than NT handles. They don't have a counterpart of `DuplicateHandle`, have the same value among processes, and objects' life time is tied to handle life time. That makes a shared handle table pretty straightforward. All we need is to be able to validate the handle and get a shm offset from it. That would eliminate the need for `get_shared_user_object` entirely and make using "locator" infrastructure an unnecessary complication.
The layout of the table is a secondary concern, but with a shared handle table in place, making it compatible with modern 64-bit Windows version seems trivial.