fitzgen opened PR #9565 from fitzgen:instance-and-store-split
to bytecodealliance:main
:
At various times, for example in libcalls, we need to go from a raw
vmctx
pointer that Wasm gave us to both an&mut Instance
and an&mut Store{Opaque,Context}
. This is a pretty fundamental unsafe aspect of implementing a language runtimne in Rust, but we can tighten things up a bit and make them a little safer than they currently are. This commit is such an attempt and is notably tackling the issue of creating multiple store borrows after we have an instance borrow.This commit makes the following changes:
Instance
doesn't expose a method to get the raw*mut dyn VMStore
pointer or otherwise create a store borrow.You cannot construct an
Instance
directly from avmctx
pointer.There is now an
InstanceAndStore
type that represents unique access to both anInstance
and aStore
.You can (with
unsafe
) create anInstanceAndStore
from a rawvmctx
pointer. This generally only happens inside a couple "bottlenecks", not all throughout the codebase, like the shared plumbing code for libcalls.The
InstanceAndStore
can be unpacked into a mutable borrow of anInstance
and a mutable borrow of aStore
. This unpacking takes holds a mutable borrow of the originalInstanceAndStore
, so double borrows of the store are no longer a concern, so long as you don't useunsafe
to create newInstanceAndStore
s for the samevmctx
.All
Instance
methods and functions that previously would unsafely turn theInstance
's internal store pointer into a store borrow to perform some action now take a store argument, and this store is threaded around as necessary.Altogether, I feel that we've ended up with an architecture that is a safety improvement over where we were previously, and will help us properly avoid Rust UB.
For what its worth, I do not think this is the end state. I foresee at least two additional follow ups that I unfortunately do not currently have time for:
Create
ComponentInstanceAndStore
, which is the same thing that this commit did but for components. I started on this but ran out of fuel while trying to update macros for all the component shims and transcoders.Stop dealing with
&mut vm::Table
s and&mut vm::Global
s and all that in the runtime. Instead just deal with indices, similar to how things are structured in the host API level. This refactoring was not previously possible due to (1) thewasmtime
versuswasmtime-runtime
crate split and (2) the lack ofStoreOpaque
s threaded through the VM internals. The first blocker was addressed a few months ago, this commit removes the second blocker. This will still be a pretty large refactoring though, but I think ultimately will be worth it.<!--
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 requested wasmtime-core-reviewers for a review on PR #9565.
fitzgen requested alexcrichton for a review on PR #9565.
fitzgen updated PR #9565.
fitzgen updated PR #9565.
alexcrichton submitted PR review:
Looks great :+1:
One comment about the
'static
though on thedyn VMStore
type though.
alexcrichton created PR review comment:
Can the
'static
here be removed? In theory that's a "lie" because we don't constrainT: 'static
in theStore<T>
.
fitzgen submitted PR review.
fitzgen created PR review comment:
Unfortunately, I don't think it can be or else the borrow is invariant and the
InstanceAndStore
is unusable after calling unpack once, which isn't acceptable forCaller::with
, which needs to access the pair multiple times. It miiight have been an issue in certain libcalls too, I can't quite remember.Morally, I see this as a "smaller lie" than our current status quo where we just whip up a borrow from a raw pointer whenever we feel like it...
I can try poking at it again, but if I can't figure out a way to remove the
'static
, do you think this is a blocker to landing this?
alexcrichton submitted PR review.
alexcrichton created PR review comment:
Hm this is surprising. I'm worried about labeling this
'static
when it wasn't since that to me isn't a failure condition we worried about before (I think at least?). Mind trying to remove it and see what happens?I'm also surprised if
InstanceAndStore
is unusable after one call, as that probably means we have this whole tying typed incorrectly anyway...
fitzgen submitted PR review.
fitzgen created PR review comment:
I guess we could maybe get rid of
InstanceAndStore
and just haveimpl Instance { pub(crate) unsafe fn from_vmctx<R>(vmctx: *mut VMContext, f: impl FnOnce(&mut StoreOpaque, &mut Instance) -> R) -> R { // ... } }
(And another version for
StoreInner<T>
)
fitzgen submitted PR review.
fitzgen created PR review comment:
This would require moving all the
VMStore
trait methods toStoreOpaque
fitzgen updated PR #9565.
alexcrichton submitted PR review.
fitzgen merged PR #9565.
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 16:03 UTC