Introduce a new API that allows notifying that a Store has moved to a new thread (#2822)

* Introduce a new API that allows notifying that a Store has moved to a new thread

* Add backlink to documentation, and mention the new API in the multithreading doc;

crates/wasmtime/src/store.rs

@@ -498,6 +498,25 @@ impl Store {
         &self.inner.frame_info
     }
 
+    /// Notifies that the current Store (and all referenced entities) has been moved over to a
+    /// different thread.
+    ///
+    /// See also the multithreading documentation for more details:
+    /// <https://docs.wasmtime.dev/examples-rust-multithreading.html>.
+    ///
+    /// # Safety
+    ///
+    /// In general, it's not possible to move a `Store` to a different thread, because it isn't `Send`.
+    /// That being said, it is possible to create an unsafe `Send` wrapper over a `Store`, assuming
+    /// the safety guidelines exposed in the multithreading documentation have been applied. So it
+    /// is in general unnecessary to do this, if you're not doing unsafe things.
+    ///
+    /// It is fine to call this several times: only the first call will have an effect.
+    pub unsafe fn notify_switched_thread(&self) {
+        wasmtime_runtime::init_traps(frame_info::GlobalFrameInfo::is_wasm_pc)
+            .expect("failed to initialize per-threads traps");
+    }
+
     /// Perform garbage collection of `ExternRef`s.
     pub fn gc(&self) {
         // For this crate's API, we ensure that `set_stack_canary` invariants

docs/examples-rust-multithreading.md

@@ -129,11 +129,16 @@ some possibilities include:
     `Store::set` or `Func::wrap`) implement the `Send` trait.
 
   If these requirements are met it is technically safe to move a store and its
-  objects between threads. The reason that this strategy isn't recommended,
+  objects between threads. When you move a store to another thread, it is
-  however, is that you will receive no assistance from the Rust compiler in
+  required that you run the `Store::notify_switched_thread()` method after the
-  verifying that the transfer across threads is indeed actually safe. This will
+  store has landed on the new thread, so that per-thread initialization is
-  require auditing your embedding of Wasmtime itself to ensure it meets these
+  correctly re-run. Failure to do so may cause wasm traps to crash the whole
-  requirements.
+  application.
+
+  The reason that this strategy isn't recommended, however, is that you will
+  receive no assistance from the Rust compiler in verifying that the transfer
+  across threads is indeed actually safe. This will require auditing your
+  embedding of Wasmtime itself to ensure it meets these requirements.
 
   It's important to note that the requirements here also apply to the futures
   returned from `Func::call_async`. These futures are not `Send` due to them

tests/all/traps.rs

@@ -591,3 +591,42 @@ note: run with `WASMTIME_BACKTRACE_DETAILS=1` environment variable to display mo
     );
     Ok(())
 }
+
+#[test]
+fn multithreaded_traps() -> Result<()> {
+    // Compile and run unreachable on a thread, then moves over the whole store to another thread,
+    // and make sure traps are still correctly caught after notifying the store of the move.
+    let instance = {
+        let store = Store::default();
+        let module = Module::new(
+            store.engine(),
+            r#"(module (func (export "run") unreachable))"#,
+        )?;
+        Instance::new(&store, &module, &[])?
+    };
+
+    assert!(instance.get_typed_func::<(), ()>("run")?.call(()).is_err());
+
+    struct SendInstance {
+        inner: Instance,
+    }
+    unsafe impl Send for SendInstance {}
+
+    let instance = SendInstance { inner: instance };
+
+    let handle = std::thread::spawn(move || {
+        let instance = instance.inner;
+        unsafe {
+            instance.store().notify_switched_thread();
+        }
+        assert!(instance
+            .get_typed_func::<(), ()>("run")
+            .unwrap()
+            .call(())
+            .is_err());
+    });
+
+    handle.join().expect("couldn't join thread");
+
+    Ok(())
+}