Stream: git-wasmtime

Topic: wasmtime / PR #9528 Merge static/dynamic guard size options

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 31 2024 at 16:22):

alexcrichton requested pchickey for a review on PR #9528.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 31 2024 at 16:22):

alexcrichton requested wasmtime-core-reviewers for a review on PR #9528.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 31 2024 at 16:22):

alexcrichton opened PR #9528 from alexcrichton:merge-guard-size-options to bytecodealliance:main:

This commit is the first of what will likely be a few to refactor the memory-related configuration options in Wasmtime. The end goal of these refactorings is to fix some preexisting issues and additionally make the configuration easier to understand for both users and implementors alike. First on the chopping block here is to merge the dynamic_memory_guard_size and static_memory_guard_size options into one option. AFAIK there's not a strong reason to have separate configuration options for these so it's hopefully simpler to have a single memory_guard_size option which applies to all linear memories equally.

I'll note that the old CLI options are preserved but are documented as deprecated. We don't currently warn on using "deprecated options" so for now the old options are just documented as deprecated and are otherwise silently accepted.

<!--
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 31 2024 at 16:49):

alexcrichton requested elliottt for a review on PR #9528.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 31 2024 at 16:49):

alexcrichton updated PR #9528.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 31 2024 at 16:49):

alexcrichton requested wasmtime-fuzz-reviewers for a review on PR #9528.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 31 2024 at 18:46):

github-actions[bot] commented on PR #9528:

Subscribe to Label Action

cc @fitzgen

<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "fuzzing", "wasmtime:api", "wasmtime:c-api", "wasmtime:config"

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>

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 31 2024 at 18:52):

alexcrichton requested wasmtime-compiler-reviewers for a review on PR #9528.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 31 2024 at 18:52):

alexcrichton updated PR #9528.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 31 2024 at 18:53):

alexcrichton updated PR #9528.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 31 2024 at 19:45):

github-actions[bot] commented on PR #9528:

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 (Nov 01 2024 at 17:05):

pchickey submitted PR review:

Thanks, this is a nice simplification

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Nov 01 2024 at 17:39):

alexcrichton merged PR #9528.

Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 16:03 UTC