Stream: git-wasmtime

Topic: wasmtime / issue #11181 Consider opting-in to more pedant...

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jul 03 2025 at 21:09):

alexcrichton opened issue #11181:

In light of unsafe code guidelines for Wasmtime and browsing the list of Clippy lints there are a number that we might want to opt-in to. For example:

• missing_safety_doc - this would help ensure that # Safety sections are available on all unsafe functions.
• multiple_unsafe_ops_per_block - this would help ensure that // SAFETY: ... documentation for an unsafe block is accurately describing just one unsafe operation, not multiple by accident. This might also help over time where new unsafety couldn't get introduced in a block by accident without explaining why it's valid.
• undocumented_unsafe_blocks - this would ensure that all unsafe blocks have a comment explaining their rationale.

To be clear though I do not believe that it would be helpful to blanket require this for the workspace all at once. Writing lots of trivial // SAFETY documentation that doesn't do anything more than the obvious is not going to be helpful and will otherwise introduce a lot of noise. Nevertheless though I do think there's a world in which we could perhaps migrate a module-at-a-time to enabling these lints (or maybe even function-at-a-time if modules are too coarse-grained). Over time more and more of the wasmtime crate would be held to a higher standard and eventually the entire crate would use these lints (or some subset).

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jul 03 2025 at 21:09):

alexcrichton added the wasmtime:unsafe-code label to Issue #11181.

Last updated: Dec 06 2025 at 06:05 UTC