cfallin requested fitzgen for a review on PR #7263.
cfallin requested wasmtime-compiler-reviewers for a review on PR #7263.
cfallin opened PR #7263 from cfallin:pcc-two-sided-range
to bytecodealliance:main
:
This is needed for soundness when verifying accesses to memtype fields: it's not enough to know that we're accessing an offset in
0
up tofield_offset
inclusive, we need to know the access is actually tofield_offset
.The simplest change that validates this turned out to be the most general one: making ranges two-sided rather than one-sided. The transform is mostly mechanical, but a few new tests verify that ranges are updated on both sides, and some fail-tests verify that "fuzzily imprecise" pointers to struct fields fail to validate.
<!--
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
-->
fitzgen submitted PR review.
fitzgen submitted PR review.
fitzgen created PR review comment:
This can use
?
propagation now.
fitzgen created PR review comment:
:bike: :paintbrush: Maybe we should just call this
Range
? That matches the text format.
fitzgen created PR review comment:
Can use
?
here as well.
cfallin updated PR #7263.
cfallin submitted PR review.
cfallin created PR review comment:
Ah, yeah, that makes more sense!
cfallin submitted PR review.
cfallin created PR review comment:
Done!
cfallin submitted PR review.
cfallin created PR review comment:
Done!
cfallin has enabled auto merge for PR #7263.
cfallin merged PR #7263.
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 17:03 UTC