3 ms·

> You're only wasting virtual address space, not actual RAM. Fair enough, that's true. > And of course the WASM runtime already needs to trap for invalid addr

by OskarS 4y ago

> You're only wasting virtual address space, not actual RAM. Fair enough, that's true. > And of course the WASM runtime already needs to trap for invalid addresses (eg, -1 right out the gate). How would trapping the first few pages be any more expensive than any other unmapped range? Memory locations are presumably all unsigned, so -1 is not an issue. The thing I'm saying is that you're turning a test that was `if (addr < LIMIT)` into `if (addr != 0 && addr < LIMIT)`, which is not nothing. And it's on EVERY memory access. Thinking about it, there's no way you could rely on the MMU to be the ONLY memory check obviously. Like, the JIT can't translate a reference to `x = memory[ptr]` into just a `mov x, [BASE + ptr]`, because it could reference non-WASM memory, which is obviously a security no-no (unless it could statically guarantee `ptr < LIMIT`). You need some kind of runtime check in addition for security and stability, you can't get around it. Given that, I think I agree with you, might as well just do it. It's, like, two or three extra instructions or something? But I would not say that it's free.

kllrnohj 4y ago
> The thing I'm saying is that you're turning a test that was `if (addr < LIMIT)` into `if (addr != 0 && addr < LIMIT)`, which is not nothing. And it's on EVERY memory access. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying every memory access would become: addr = addr - START_OFFSET (eg, 0x1000) if (addr < LIMIT) { do stuff } There's just an extra sub in there. And you can definitely optimize that, same as any other bounds check optimization. Which the runtime is already tasked with doing since all your loads are already (wasm_address + host_array_buffer_ptr). If that add is free, the early sub likely is, too. They fall into the same category here. But you can also make it completely free by just ensuring there's a dead zone before the host array buffer location, such that anything in the range 0x0-0x1000 (or whatever) just lands before the array buffer's start location which has been mmap'd to trap. Then you don't need any changes at all.
cesarb 4y ago
> Thinking about it, there's no way you could rely on the MMU to be the ONLY memory check obviously. Like, the JIT can't translate a reference to `x = memory[ptr]` into just a `mov x, [BASE + ptr]`, because it could reference non-WASM memory, which is obviously a security no-no (unless it could statically guarantee `ptr < LIMIT`). You need some kind of runtime check in addition for security and stability, you can't get around it. On 64-bit systems, you actually can, since WASM is for now 32-bit only; just reserve a 4GB (plus 1 page) block of virtual memory starting at BASE, and there's no way for BASE+ptr (assuming ptr is 32-bit unsigned) to reach outside it (the extra 1 page after the end is to catch unaligned accesses at the very end of that 4GB). That is, you can statically guarantee "ptr < LIMIT" if "ptr" is 32 bits and LIMIT is 2^32 or more.

by OskarS 4y ago

kllrnohj 4y ago

> The thing I'm saying is that you're turning a test that was `if (addr < LIMIT)` into `if (addr != 0 && addr < LIMIT)`, which is not nothing. And it's on EVERY memory access. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying every memory access would become: addr = addr - START_OFFSET (eg, 0x1000) if (addr < LIMIT) { do stuff } There's just an extra sub in there. And you can definitely optimize that, same as any other bounds check optimization. Which the runtime is already tasked with doing since all your loads are already (wasm_address + host_array_buffer_ptr). If that add is free, the early sub likely is, too. They fall into the same category here. But you can also make it completely free by just ensuring there's a dead zone before the host array buffer location, such that anything in the range 0x0-0x1000 (or whatever) just lands before the array buffer's start location which has been mmap'd to trap. Then you don't need any changes at all.

cesarb 4y ago

> Thinking about it, there's no way you could rely on the MMU to be the ONLY memory check obviously. Like, the JIT can't translate a reference to `x = memory[ptr]` into just a `mov x, [BASE + ptr]`, because it could reference non-WASM memory, which is obviously a security no-no (unless it could statically guarantee `ptr < LIMIT`). You need some kind of runtime check in addition for security and stability, you can't get around it. On 64-bit systems, you actually can, since WASM is for now 32-bit only; just reserve a 4GB (plus 1 page) block of virtual memory starting at BASE, and there's no way for BASE+ptr (assuming ptr is 32-bit unsigned) to reach outside it (the extra 1 page after the end is to catch unaligned accesses at the very end of that 4GB). That is, you can statically guarantee "ptr < LIMIT" if "ptr" is 32 bits and LIMIT is 2^32 or more.