cfallin requested alexcrichton for a review on PR #12191.
cfallin opened PR #12191 from cfallin:debug-frame-cursor-safety to bytecodealliance:main:
As per [this discussion], we decided that we would handle potential frame-cursor invalidation unsafety (with a hypothetical future frame-editing debugger API) by putting
unsafeon that future hypothetical API rather than on the cursor construction. With the APIs available today on theStore, there is no way to invalidate the frame cursor while within its lifetime-bounded scope (with lifetime tied to theStorethat is passed into the hostcall creating the cursor), so the API today should be completely safe. This PR makes it so.[this discussion]: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/pull/12176#discussion_r2636431864
<!--
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
-->
cfallin requested wasmtime-core-reviewers for a review on PR #12191.
alexcrichton commented on PR #12191:
I think
StoreBacktrace::store_mutshould be safe now as well, right?
cfallin updated PR #12191.
cfallin commented on PR #12191:
Yep, good call -- updated!
alexcrichton submitted PR review.
cfallin has enabled auto merge for PR #12191.
cfallin merged PR #12191.
Last updated: Jan 09 2026 at 13:15 UTC