Stream: git-wasmtime

Topic: wasmtime / issue #4040 Remove support for userfaultfd

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Apr 15 2022 at 20:27):

alexcrichton commented on issue #4040:

It's worth pointing out that this doesn't yet remove the support for paged memory initialization internally because that initialization is a step towards the static memory initialization that copy-on-write uses. I'll file an issue about simplifying that if we move forward with this.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Apr 15 2022 at 20:41):

github-actions[bot] commented on issue #4040:

Subscribe to Label Action

cc @peterhuene

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

Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:

• peterhuene: wasmtime:api

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 (Apr 15 2022 at 20:41):

github-actions[bot] commented on issue #4040:

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 (Apr 18 2022 at 17:43):

alexcrichton commented on issue #4040:

FWIW I do think we'll want to measure that before landing it, I think historically I measured that madvise got slower as you gave it more memory to madvise, even if all the memory was PROT_NONE'd memory. I wasn't measuring precisely that though so it may be worth re-measuring to confirm.

Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 17:03 UTC