[ros-dev] FreeWin95

[Alex Ionescu]

Phillip Susi wrote:

> Alex Ionescu wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> That was my point. Since Win32 exes need to load ntdll, that's why 
>> it's marked as such.
>>
>
> What I was trying to say is that ntdll could easily be marked for the 
> native subsystem and it would change nothing.  AFAIK, LoadLibrary() 
> does not check the subsystem tag, so win32 apps could still load ntdll 
> just fine.  It is only CreateProcess() that checks the subsystem type, 
> so that it can correctly launch executables marked for OS2 or POSIX.


>
>>
>>
>> Note that not all of win32k is actually loaded again. Some parts of 
>> it are only visible in certain sessions and isolated from each 
>> others. I don't see why it's a bad thing.
>>
>
> AFAIK, it IS simply loaded again.  Obviously the read only sections 
> like .text will share physical pages in the same way that user mode 
> code is shared between processes at the physical page level.  I'm sure 
> that some parts of the .data segment don't really need to be session 
> specific, so it is a waste to duplicate that data.  

Not all parts are.

> As for isolation, what good does it do to give each their own complete 
> .data segment?  It isn't like if one session crashes, it won't bring 
> down the others.  It is still kernel mode code afterall, and as such, 
> it should not be perverted to behave more like user mode modules.


>
>
>> That might be true, but I still like the isolation it provides. But 
>> by the way, the kernel changes that were needed for session spaces 
>> and loading win32k multiple times are extremly complex and "fixing 
>> win32k" would've probably been much easier, so I doubt this was the 
>> reason.
>
>
> I would think so too, but the fact remains that win32k already 
> appeared to have window stations in place specifically for the purpose 
> of supporting multiple consoles ( be they physical or virtual ), so I 
> can see no good reason to go through the trouble of hacking up the 
> kernel to be able to load a driver multiple times.  Unless you know of 
> a good reason, then ReactOS should not make that same mistake.

Multiple-driver capability could be considered a feature and used for 
other purposes later. While making win32k load multiple times might be a 
"mistake", having the ability to do would, in my opinion, result in a 
much better driver (just like it did for MS:, win32k became a lot more 
portable, unloadable, etc).

>
> One good technical reason NOT to use session space is that the pages 
> therein can't be marked with the global page bit, so they must be 
> flushed from the TLB on every context switch.  Then the page tables 
> themselves take up more memory, though a relatively small amount.
>
>> Ah c'mon, I hope you don't mean that. That's the typical mistake 
>> people make when a monolithic kernel can load modules. That doesn't 
>> make Linux modular.
>>
>
> Then what does?  The definition of modular means the system is broken 
> up into multiple pieces which can be mixed and matched as desired.  
> Both systems meet that definition.  Unless you are using a definition 
> like microkernel purists use, whereby only the most basic primatives 
> should be in the kernel and everything else, including device drivers, 
> should be user space.  Of course, such purists consider both to be 
> monolithic.

Modular doesn't mean microkernel. Linux is not a microkernel, it's a 
monolothic kernel. Nor is NT, which is why it's called a Hybrid 
Microkernel, which is still a subclass of microkernels.

>
>>
>> Considering they've been actively improving it, and now in R2 we've 
>> been working to make it even more powerful and compatible, and that 
>> in Vista it will be part of the OS, I think it's a bit more then just 
>> DOD compliance at this point.
>>
>
> They have been actively improving it?  I have not seen any improvement 
> ever.  I remember back in NT 3.50 out of the box, NT only was posix.1 
> compliant to meet the DOD requirements.  If you wanted to run any kind 
> of real posix code, you needed to buy some third party software, whose 
> name now escapes me.  I am not aware of any improvements to the posix 
> subsystem since then.
>
> If you are refering to Services For Unix, that isn't a posix 
> subsystem, it's just a bunch of utilities to network with unix 
> systems, like an NFS client/server and a telnet server.  It seems they 
> have been working on that lately, but not a posix subsystem.

Erm, the posix subsystem has been removed since Windows 2000. Had SFU 
not been including one all along, then all those utlities would've never 
worked...so yes, SFU -does- include psxss. That part is called SUA 
(Subsystem for Unix Applications). One of the big improvemnts is that it 
now supports 64-bit.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu