* Expose memory-related options in `Config`
This commit was initially motivated by looking more into #1501, but it
ended up balooning a bit after finding a few issues. The high-level
items in this commit are:
* New configuration options via `wasmtime::Config` are exposed to
configure the tunable limits of how memories are allocated and such.
* The `MemoryCreator` trait has been updated to accurately reflect the
required allocation characteristics that JIT code expects.
* A bug has been fixed in the cranelift wasm code generation where if no
guard page was present bounds checks weren't accurately performed.
The new `Config` methods allow tuning the memory allocation
characteristics of wasmtime. Currently 64-bit platforms will reserve 6GB
chunks of memory for each linear memory, but by tweaking various config
options you can change how this is allocate, perhaps at the cost of
slower JIT code since it needs more bounds checks. The methods are
intended to be pretty thoroughly documented as to the effect they have
on the JIT code and what values you may wish to select. These new
methods have been added to the spectest fuzzer to ensure that various
configuration values for these methods don't affect correctness.
The `MemoryCreator` trait previously only allocated memories with a
`MemoryType`, but this didn't actually reflect the guarantees that JIT
code expected. JIT code is generated with an assumption about the
minimum size of the guard region, as well as whether memory is static or
dynamic (whether the base pointer can be relocated). These properties
must be upheld by custom allocation engines for JIT code to perform
correctly, so extra parameters have been added to
`MemoryCreator::new_memory` to reflect this.
Finally the fuzzing with `Config` turned up an issue where if no guard
pages present the wasm code wouldn't correctly bounds-check memory
accesses. The issue here was that with a guard page we only need to
bounds-check the first byte of access, but without a guard page we need
to bounds-check the last byte of access. This meant that the code
generation needed to account for the size of the memory operation
(load/store) and use this as the offset-to-check in the no-guard-page
scenario. I've attempted to make the various comments in cranelift a bit
more exhaustive too to hopefully make it a bit clearer for future
readers!
Closes#1501
* Review comments
* Update a comment
363cd2d20f