9 ms·

Thanks, that makes sense. This would only matter if you’re sharing the linear memory between different bytecode modules, though, right? If only one wasm module

by paulgb 4y ago

Thanks, that makes sense. This would only matter if you’re sharing the linear memory between different bytecode modules, though, right? If only one wasm module can touch a span of linear memory I can’t think of anything that it could do that wouldn’t be possible with type-aware bound checks (in the extreme, it could just treat the memory as an array of u8s and implement data structures on top of that, bypassing any type-awareness that the VM has)

pjmlp 4y ago
In the extreme, one can write bytecode or Assembly directly and thus exploit everything, including binaries generated from safe languages. The point is preventing that a 100 byte array gets a 200 index access, even though the overall linear memory segment for the WASM module is 500 big.