alexcrichton opened PR #12036 from alexcrichton:downgrade-threads to bytecodealliance:main:
This commit is borne out of a fuzz bug that was opened recently. The fuzz bug specifically has to do with fallout from #12022, specifically
SharedMemorybeing used to allocated instead ofMemory. In this situation the resource limiter is no longer consulted meaning that shared memories bypass this and aren't caught by OOM checks. This is currently by design becauseSharedMemoryinstances don't know which resource limiter to hook into per-store.More generally though the implementation of wasm threads, while workable in Wasmtime, has a number of known relatively large deficiencies. These were not resolved prior to ungating the wasm proposal (that's on me) but nevertheless the quality of implementation is not quite up to "tier 1 par" with the rest of what Wasmtime offers. Given that I'm proposing that threads is downgraded to tier 2 for now which means, primarily, that we won't issue CVEs for issues with it. The proposal is still on-by-default and usable-by-default, but my hope is to reflect the current level of quality in Wasmtime with this adjustment.
This commit shuffles around some documentation of wasm proposals to split it into tier 1/2/3 instead of on/off-by-default and then adds a column for whether the proposal is on-by-default.
<!--
Please make sure you include the following information:
If this work has been discussed elsewhere, please include a link to that
conversation. If it was discussed in an issue, just mention "issue #...".Explain why this change is needed. If the details are in an issue already,
this can be brief.Our development process is documented in the Wasmtime book:
https://docs.wasmtime.dev/contributing-development-process.htmlPlease ensure all communication follows the code of conduct:
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
-->
alexcrichton requested wasmtime-fuzz-reviewers for a review on PR #12036.
alexcrichton requested cfallin for a review on PR #12036.
alexcrichton requested wasmtime-default-reviewers for a review on PR #12036.
cfallin submitted PR review:
No objections from me at least; not sure if we want to discuss in the Wasmtime meeting or if anyone else has any input on the decision...
alexcrichton commented on PR #12036:
Good point yeah, let's discuss in a meeting
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #12036:
Subscribe to Label Action
cc @fitzgen
<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "fuzzing", "wasmtime:docs"Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:
- fitzgen: fuzzing
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the <code>.github/subscribe-to-label.json</code> configuration file.
Learn more.
</details>
alexcrichton requested dicej for a review on PR #12036.
alexcrichton requested wasmtime-core-reviewers for a review on PR #12036.
alexcrichton updated PR #12036.
alexcrichton commented on PR #12036:
Ok updated this from today's discussion in the Wasmtime meeting namely:
- The threads proposal is still downgraded to tier 2
- The WebAssembly
threadsfeature continues to be enabled by default- Creation of shared memories is now disabled by default
Notably there's not actually any means of exercising the threading/problematic parts of the API, namely
SharedMemory. That being said single-threaded atomics are still allowed in wasm which should work just fine.
alexcrichton updated PR #12036.
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #12036:
Label Messager: wasmtime:config
It looks like you are changing Wasmtime's configuration options. Make sure to
complete this check list:
[ ] If you added a new
Configmethod, you wrote extensive documentation for
it.<details>
Our documentation should be of the following form:
```text
Short, simple summary sentence.More details. These details can be multiple paragraphs. There should be
information about not just the method, but its parameters and results as
well.Is this method fallible? If so, when can it return an error?
Can this method panic? If so, when does it panic?
Example
Optional example here.
```</details>
[ ] If you added a new
Configmethod, or modified an existing one, you
ensured that this configuration is exercised by the fuzz targets.<details>
For example, if you expose a new strategy for allocating the next instance
slot inside the pooling allocator, you should ensure that at least one of our
fuzz targets exercises that new strategy.Often, all that is required of you is to ensure that there is a knob for this
configuration option in [wasmtime_fuzzing::Config][fuzzing-config] (or one
of its nestedstructs).Rarely, this may require authoring a new fuzz target to specifically test this
configuration. See [our docs on fuzzing][fuzzing-docs] for more details.</details>
[ ] If you are enabling a configuration option by default, make sure that it
has been fuzzed for at least two weeks before turning it on by default.[fuzzing-config]: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/ca0e8d0a1d8cefc0496dba2f77a670571d8fdcab/crates/fuzzing/src/generators.rs#L182-L194
[fuzzing-docs]: https://docs.wasmtime.dev/contributing-fuzzing.html
<details>
To modify this label's message, edit the <code>.github/label-messager/wasmtime-config.md</code> file.
To add new label messages or remove existing label messages, edit the
<code>.github/label-messager.json</code> configuration file.</details>
alexcrichton updated PR #12036.
alexcrichton updated PR #12036.
alexcrichton updated PR #12036.
alexcrichton updated PR #12036.
alexcrichton updated PR #12036.
dicej submitted PR review.
alexcrichton updated PR #12036.
alexcrichton has enabled auto merge for PR #12036.
alexcrichton merged PR #12036.
Last updated: Dec 06 2025 at 07:03 UTC