On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Francois Gouget wrote:
>
> >Anyway, when compared to the shared memory server it seems to me that
> >the main advantage of a kernel module is stability. It is my
> >understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that with the shared memory
> >approach, a buggy (or malicious) Wine/Winelib application could crash
> >all other Wine/Winelib applications using that server (at least only one
> >user would be affected).
> >
> Whereas with the kernel module, it could panic the entire machine. Yepee!!
But of course that's true only if the kernel module has a bug.
With the shared memory server any Windows application can crash all the
others (but not the machine).
To sum up, here's a table of what crashes based on the source of the
bug:
| Current | Kernel | Shm
------------------+---------------+----------------+--------------------
Bug in the server | Wine | Machine | Wine
------------------+---------------+----------------+--------------------
Bug in a Windows | Process | Process | Wine
application | | |
So you're better of with the kernel module if the bug is in the
application, and you're better of with shm if the bug is in the server.
Then it's a matter of which one is more likely. It's also a good
argument for having the option to keep using the current server so that
you can make the trade-off between speed and stability yourself.
--
Francois Gouget [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fgouget.free.fr/
RFC 2549: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2549.txt
IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service
