fix: Protect against GC from validate_bytes#1447
Open
TartanLlama wants to merge 5 commits intomainfrom
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In the case that it is given an
ArrayBufferView,validate_bytesreturns a pointer to a buffer that may be GC'ed. The current uses ofvalidate_bytesare careful to not add any potentially GC-triggering calls between the call tovalidate_bytesand hostcalls, but this may change in the future, and there is nothing in place to ensure the GC does not occur. As such, this PR changesvalidate_bytesto additionally return an optional GC guard, that calling code can hold on to to ensure there is no GC at runtime while the pointer is live.Honestly I'm not sure this is all worth it and I'm tempted to just return a
std::vectorfrom that function, but I figured I'd avoid regressing performance in this case while adding some additional safety.There is no test for this PR, because it is adding defensive code for potential future uses of
validate_bytes, or changes to existing callers.