Stream: git-wasmtime

Topic: wasmtime / issue #7282 Gate many CLI/Wasmtime features be...

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 18 2023 at 22:44):

github-actions[bot] commented on issue #7282:

Subscribe to Label Action

cc @peterhuene

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

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

• peterhuene: wasmtime:api, wasmtime:c-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 (Oct 18 2023 at 22:45):

github-actions[bot] commented on issue #7282:

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 21 2023 at 03:12):

kayabaNerve commented on issue #7282:

This merged jitdump and vtune into a new, single feature profiling, adding the ittapi dependency to anyone who solely wants jitdump. It also didn't properly update documentation as https://docs.rs/wasmtime/latest/wasmtime/ still details a jitdump/vtune feature (with no profiling feature).

While I'm not against the existence of a new profiling feature, could the original two features be restored with profiling activating both of them?

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Nov 21 2023 at 16:53):

alexcrichton commented on issue #7282:

Ah I merged those since they were both on-by-default and there didn't at the time appear to be much benefit to sharding further. Out of curiosity is this something where you're concerned about binary size of the ittapi dependency? Or is it otherwise not building for you for one reason or another?

One reason I unified them was I also placed the guest profiler behind the same profiling feature and by having a complete on/off switch it would enable conditionally compiling out even more code as well in theory too. I was hoping to avoid a feature-per-profiler, so if possible I'd prefer to solve the problem without splitting it back up, but that depends on the issue that you're having and if it can only be solved by adding a vtune feature back that seems ok too

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Nov 22 2023 at 00:46):

kayabaNerve commented on issue #7282:

As someone who refers to an upstream which disables default features, then re-enables features as needed, this did introduce the ittapi dependency for me as I updated it in my downstream. To be clear, I agree with that policy.

I don't personally care about ittapi's effect on binary size. I care about the fact I now have ittapi in scope and will have to, eventually, read through and audit ittapi to ensure it's non-malicious (or import the Bytecode Alliance's vet statement for it, which I can assume exists). While I can recognize the library is hosted and maintained by Intel, the actual publishers of the crate are three individuals, any of who could be compromised.

TL;DR It increases my supply chain and complicates the package graph for no benefit to me, making this a downgrade in wasmtime's utility.

Again. I don't mind the profiling feature. I just wish I could still access the original jitdump feature. Accordingly, I believe this can be implemented without hurting the performance/effects/code-gen of the profiling feature.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Nov 22 2023 at 16:37):

alexcrichton commented on issue #7282:

That makes sense yeah, thanks for explaining! If it's ok with you I'd prefer to stay the current course, however. Wasmtime doesn't guarantee that we won't add new dependencies with new version of Wasmtime even with default features disabled. That being said we do guarantee that all dependencies used by Wasmtime have a vetted version by BA maintainers.

Otherwise I'd personally prefer to avoid sharding the profiling feature into a feature-per-strategy as well as that feels like a bit of an overload of Cargo features (we already have a lot). But again I don't feel super strongly about this, just a slight preference.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Nov 22 2023 at 20:35):

kayabaNerve commented on issue #7282:

I fully understand dependencies may increase. That does not affect my commentary on needless dependencies having increased.

As for staying the course, I can respect your preference of simplicity. If in the future, you change your mind and would accept a PR re-defining profiling as a superset of both features, please let me know.

Last updated: Oct 23 2024 at 20:03 UTC