Stream: git-wasmtime

Topic: wasmtime / PR #9434 Update docs/stabilization of wasm pro...

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2024 at 20:04):

alexcrichton requested wasmtime-core-reviewers for a review on PR #9434.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2024 at 20:04):

alexcrichton requested elliottt for a review on PR #9434.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2024 at 20:04):

alexcrichton requested wasmtime-default-reviewers for a review on PR #9434.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2024 at 20:04):

alexcrichton opened PR #9434 from alexcrichton:update-docs-around-features to bytecodealliance:main:

This commit updates our documentation and documented status of various WebAssembly proposals. The goal of this commit it to explicitly list all requirements for each WebAssembly proposal in a way such that enabling a feature requires actively checking this table and performing effort to fill in. This is intended to mitigate GHSA-q8hx-mm92-4wvg where it was found that we were accidentally not fuzzing tail calls but had enabled it by default.

This shuffles around some documentation, modernizes a bit, and notably tries to list out a green checkbox or red X for the status of various proposals. Notes for "holes" in the "on by default matrix" are also added.

<!--
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.html

Please ensure all communication follows the code of conduct:
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
-->

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2024 at 20:19):

alexcrichton updated PR #9434.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2024 at 21:28):

elliottt submitted PR review:

This looks good to me!

I wonder if there's a good place for documentation about determining when fuzzing is good enough. Perhaps something as simple as manually injecting todo!() into new implementations so that running the fuzzer locally will panic when exercising the new behavior?

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2024 at 22:44):

github-actions[bot] commented on PR #9434:

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 Config method, 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 Config method, 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 nested structs).

  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.

Learn more.

</details>

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 10 2024 at 20:19):

alexcrichton commented on PR #9434:

We had a bunch of discussion today about this as well, but at least by my read there were no firm conclusions. I'm going to try to document better The One Location in fuzzing where proposals are enabled/disabled but beyond that while there was also discussion in the meeting about automatically probing coverage for fuzzers we didn't reach a firm conclusion about how best to do this.

In the meantime I'm going to go ahead and merge this and I'll follow-up with more minor improvements too.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 10 2024 at 20:35):

alexcrichton merged PR #9434.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 10 2024 at 21:51):

cfallin commented on PR #9434:

We had a bunch of discussion today about this as well, but at least by my read there were no firm conclusions.

Thanks for bringing this up in discussion (and these changes!). To further the discussions around testing our fuzzing, I filed #9449 just now.

Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 16:03 UTC