coolreader18 opened issue #5109:
Feature
A set of new APIs that provide more control over fuel consumption:
impl Config { #[cfg(feature = "custom-fuel-cost")] fn fuel_cost(&mut self, f: impl Fn(&wasmparser::Operator<'_>) -> u64 + Send + Sync + 'static) -> &mut Self; } impl Store { fn fuel_remaining(&self) -> Option<u64>; /// Returns an error if the store is not configured for fuel consumption fn set_fuel(&mut self, value: u64) -> Result<()>; }
Benefit
Allows more direct control over fuel consumption and filling, letting users set custom fuel costs for each operand if they deem some to be more costly/intensive in their environment, as well letting them set precisely how much fuel they might allow a single function call or set of function calls.
Implementation
I have an implementation for the custom fuel cost configuration, and the methods on
Store
should be fairly trivial.Alternatives
fuel_remaining
andset_fuel
can be approximated byconsume_fuel(0)
andif new_fuel > fuel_remaining() { add_fuel(delta) } else { consume_fuel(delta) }
respectively.fuel_cost
cannot be emulated, so the alternative is to just accept wasmtime's default cost function. As an alternative in designing the API, thefuel_cost
closure could perhaps take awasmtime::Operator
orwasmtime::OperatorCategory
enum, so as to avoid exposingwasmparser
in the public API. However, both of those approaches have issues (a duplicateOperator
is.. okay actually thinking about it, if it were to just define anotherenum Operator
usingwasmparser::for_each_operator!
that might not be too bad. That's a valid second option, if wasmparser in public API (behind a feature flag) isn't something that's desirable.
coolreader18 edited issue #5109:
Feature
A set of new APIs that provide more control over fuel consumption:
impl Config { #[cfg(feature = "custom-fuel-cost")] fn fuel_cost(&mut self, f: impl Fn(&wasmparser::Operator<'_>) -> u64 + Send + Sync + 'static) -> &mut Self; } impl Store { fn fuel_remaining(&self) -> Option<u64>; /// Returns an error if the store is not configured for fuel consumption fn set_fuel(&mut self, value: u64) -> Result<()>; }
Benefit
Allows more direct control over fuel consumption and filling, letting users set custom fuel costs for each operand if they deem some to be more costly/intensive in their environment, as well letting them set precisely how much fuel they might allow a single function call or set of function calls.
Implementation
I have an implementation for the custom fuel cost configuration, and the methods on
Store
should be fairly trivial.Alternatives
fuel_remaining
andset_fuel
can be approximated byconsume_fuel(0)
andif new_fuel > fuel_remaining() { add_fuel(delta) } else { consume_fuel(delta) }
respectively.fuel_cost
cannot be emulated, so the alternative is to just accept wasmtime's default cost function. As an alternative in designing the API, thefuel_cost
closure could perhaps take awasmtime::Operator
orwasmtime::OperatorCategory
enum, so as to avoid exposingwasmparser
in the public API. However, both of those approaches have issues (a duplicateOperator
is.. okay actually thinking about it, if it were to just define anotherenum Operator
usingwasmparser::for_each_operator!
(maybe without the parameters at all, just the opcodes themselves?) that might not be too bad. That's a valid second option, if wasmparser in public API (behind a feature flag) isn't something that's desirable.
coolreader18 edited issue #5109:
Feature
A set of new APIs that provide more control over fuel consumption:
impl Config { #[cfg(feature = "custom-fuel-cost")] fn fuel_cost(&mut self, f: impl Fn(&wasmparser::Operator<'_>) -> u64 + Send + Sync + 'static) -> &mut Self; } impl Store { fn fuel_remaining(&self) -> Option<u64>; /// Returns an error if the store is not configured for fuel consumption fn set_fuel(&mut self, value: u64) -> Result<()>; }
Benefit
Allows more direct control over fuel consumption and filling, letting users set custom fuel costs for each operand if they deem some to be more costly/intensive in their environment, as well letting them set precisely how much fuel they might allow a single function call or set of function calls.
Implementation
I have an implementation for the custom fuel cost configuration, and the methods on
Store
should be fairly trivial.Alternatives
fuel_remaining
andset_fuel
can be approximated byconsume_fuel(0)
andif new_fuel > fuel_remaining() { add_fuel(delta) } else { consume_fuel(delta) }
respectively.fuel_cost
cannot be emulated, so the alternative is to just accept wasmtime's default cost function. As an alternative in designing the API, thefuel_cost
closure could perhaps take awasmtime::Operator
orwasmtime::OperatorCategory
enum, so as to avoid exposingwasmparser
in the public API. However, both of those approaches have issues (a duplicateOperator
is.. okay actually thinking about it, if it were to just define anotherenum Operator
usingwasmparser::for_each_operator!
(maybe without the parameters at all, just the opcodes themselves?) that might not be too bad. That's a valid second option, if wasmparser in public API (behind a feature flag) isn't something that's desirable.
Edit: actually yeah that sounds like a really good idea I'm gonna change my impl to do that.
coolreader18 edited issue #5109:
Feature
A set of new APIs that provide more control over fuel consumption:
impl Config { #[cfg(feature = "custom-fuel-cost")] fn fuel_cost(&mut self, f: impl Fn(&wasmparser::Operator<'_>) -> u64 + Send + Sync + 'static) -> &mut Self; } impl Store { fn fuel_remaining(&self) -> Option<u64>; /// Returns an error if the store is not configured for fuel consumption fn set_fuel(&mut self, value: u64) -> Result<()>; } #[non_exhaustive] struct OutOfFuelError;
Benefit
Allows more direct control over fuel consumption and filling, letting users set custom fuel costs for each operand if they deem some to be more costly/intensive in their environment, as well letting them set precisely how much fuel they might allow a single function call or set of function calls.
OutOfFuelError
being made public allows users to check when a Trap was caused by fuel running out.Implementation
I have an implementation for the custom fuel cost configuration, and the methods on
Store
should be fairly trivial.Alternatives
fuel_remaining
andset_fuel
can be approximated byconsume_fuel(0)
andif new_fuel > fuel_remaining() { add_fuel(delta) } else { consume_fuel(delta) }
respectively.fuel_cost
cannot be emulated, so the alternative is to just accept wasmtime's default cost function. As an alternative in designing the API, thefuel_cost
closure could perhaps take awasmtime::Operator
orwasmtime::OperatorCategory
enum, so as to avoid exposingwasmparser
in the public API. However, both of those approaches have issues (a duplicateOperator
is.. okay actually thinking about it, if it were to just define anotherenum Operator
usingwasmparser::for_each_operator!
(maybe without the parameters at all, just the opcodes themselves?) that might not be too bad. That's a valid second option, if wasmparser in public API (behind a feature flag) isn't something that's desirable.
coolreader18 edited issue #5109:
Feature
A set of new APIs that provide more control over fuel consumption:
impl Config { #[cfg(feature = "custom-fuel-cost")] fn fuel_cost(&mut self, f: impl Fn(&wasmparser::Operator<'_>) -> u64 + Send + Sync + 'static) -> &mut Self; } impl Store { fn fuel_remaining(&self) -> Option<u64>; /// Returns an error if the store is not configured for fuel consumption fn set_fuel(&mut self, value: u64) -> Result<()>; } #[non_exhaustive] struct OutOfFuelError;
Benefit
Allows more direct control over fuel consumption and filling, letting users set custom fuel costs for each operand if they deem some to be more costly/intensive in their environment, as well letting them set precisely how much fuel they might allow a single function call or set of function calls.
OutOfFuelError
being made public allows users to check when a Trap was caused by fuel running out.Implementation
I have an implementation for the custom fuel cost configuration, and the methods on
Store
should be fairly trivial.Alternatives
fuel_remaining
andset_fuel
can be approximated byconsume_fuel(0)
andif new_fuel > fuel_remaining() { add_fuel(delta) } else { consume_fuel(delta) }
respectively.fuel_cost
cannot be emulated, so the alternative is to just accept wasmtime's default cost function. As an alternative in designing the API, thefuel_cost
closure could perhaps take awasmtime::Operator
orwasmtime::OperatorCategory
enum, so as to avoid exposingwasmparser
in the public API. However, both of those approaches have issues (a duplicateOperator
is.. okay actually thinking about it, if it were to just define anotherenum Operator
usingwasmparser::for_each_operator!
(maybe without the parameters at all, just the opcodes themselves?) that might not be too bad. That's a valid second option, if wasmparser in public API (behind a feature flag) isn't something that's desirable.
Edit: actually yeah that sounds like a really good idea I'm gonna change my impl to do that.
coolreader18 commented on issue #5109:
Oh, looks like wasmtime-fuzzing has a shim for
set_fuel
the same as I described:https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/crates/fuzzing/src/oracles.rs#L790-L802
coolreader18 edited issue #5109:
Feature
A set of new APIs that provide more control over fuel consumption:
impl Config { fn fuel_cost(&mut self, f: impl Fn(WasmOpcode) -> u64 + Send + Sync + 'static) -> &mut Self; } enum WasmOpcode { Unreachable, Nop, Block, Loop, // ... } impl Store { fn fuel_remaining(&self) -> Option<u64>; /// Returns an error if the store is not configured for fuel consumption fn set_fuel(&mut self, value: u64) -> Result<()>; } #[non_exhaustive] struct OutOfFuelError;
Benefit
Allows more direct control over fuel consumption and filling, letting users set custom fuel costs for each operand if they deem some to be more costly/intensive in their environment, as well letting them set precisely how much fuel they might allow a single function call or set of function calls.
OutOfFuelError
being made public allows users to check when a Trap was caused by fuel running out.Implementation
I have an implementation for the custom fuel cost configuration, and the methods on
Store
should be fairly trivial.Alternatives
fuel_remaining
andset_fuel
can be approximated byconsume_fuel(0)
andif new_fuel > fuel_remaining() { add_fuel(delta) } else { consume_fuel(delta) }
respectively.fuel_cost
cannot be emulated, so the alternative is to just accept wasmtime's default cost function. As an alternative in designing the API, thefuel_cost
closure could take a&wasmparser::Operator<'_>
as it did in the original version of this issue. However, that would require exposingwasmparser
in wasmtime's public api, which is undesirable.
howjmay commented on issue #5109:
Hi I am curious why #5220 can help us set customized fuel for each opcode?
fitzgen closed issue #5109:
Feature
A set of new APIs that provide more control over fuel consumption:
impl Config { fn fuel_cost(&mut self, f: impl Fn(WasmOpcode) -> u64 + Send + Sync + 'static) -> &mut Self; } enum WasmOpcode { Unreachable, Nop, Block, Loop, // ... } impl Store { fn fuel_remaining(&self) -> Option<u64>; /// Returns an error if the store is not configured for fuel consumption fn set_fuel(&mut self, value: u64) -> Result<()>; } #[non_exhaustive] struct OutOfFuelError;
Benefit
Allows more direct control over fuel consumption and filling, letting users set custom fuel costs for each operand if they deem some to be more costly/intensive in their environment, as well letting them set precisely how much fuel they might allow a single function call or set of function calls.
OutOfFuelError
being made public allows users to check when a Trap was caused by fuel running out.Implementation
I have an implementation for the custom fuel cost configuration, and the methods on
Store
should be fairly trivial.Alternatives
fuel_remaining
andset_fuel
can be approximated byconsume_fuel(0)
andif new_fuel > fuel_remaining() { add_fuel(delta) } else { consume_fuel(delta) }
respectively.fuel_cost
cannot be emulated, so the alternative is to just accept wasmtime's default cost function. As an alternative in designing the API, thefuel_cost
closure could take a&wasmparser::Operator<'_>
as it did in the original version of this issue. However, that would require exposingwasmparser
in wasmtime's public api, which is undesirable.
RReverser commented on issue #5109:
Looks like #7240 only adds
reset_fuel
, I don't think it should've auto-closed this issue?In particular,
fn fuel_cost(&mut self, f: impl Fn(WasmOpcode) -> u64 + Send + Sync + 'static) -> &mut Self;
this would be still desirable.
alexcrichton reopened issue #5109:
Feature
A set of new APIs that provide more control over fuel consumption:
impl Config { fn fuel_cost(&mut self, f: impl Fn(WasmOpcode) -> u64 + Send + Sync + 'static) -> &mut Self; } enum WasmOpcode { Unreachable, Nop, Block, Loop, // ... } impl Store { fn fuel_remaining(&self) -> Option<u64>; /// Returns an error if the store is not configured for fuel consumption fn set_fuel(&mut self, value: u64) -> Result<()>; } #[non_exhaustive] struct OutOfFuelError;
Benefit
Allows more direct control over fuel consumption and filling, letting users set custom fuel costs for each operand if they deem some to be more costly/intensive in their environment, as well letting them set precisely how much fuel they might allow a single function call or set of function calls.
OutOfFuelError
being made public allows users to check when a Trap was caused by fuel running out.Implementation
I have an implementation for the custom fuel cost configuration, and the methods on
Store
should be fairly trivial.Alternatives
fuel_remaining
andset_fuel
can be approximated byconsume_fuel(0)
andif new_fuel > fuel_remaining() { add_fuel(delta) } else { consume_fuel(delta) }
respectively.fuel_cost
cannot be emulated, so the alternative is to just accept wasmtime's default cost function. As an alternative in designing the API, thefuel_cost
closure could take a&wasmparser::Operator<'_>
as it did in the original version of this issue. However, that would require exposingwasmparser
in wasmtime's public api, which is undesirable.
rockwotj commented on issue #5109:
Apologies for this getting closed. I was picking up #5220 which also would have closed this issue. Maybe @coolreader18 could update this issue to have it be more about a custom cost function for fuel APIs?
Also if you have opinions on store fuel related APIs would love to hear there here https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/7255
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 16:03 UTC