Memory leak involving instances and WrapFunc (due to cycle?) about wasmtime-go HOT 6 CLOSED

Ok this was fixed in the API redesign of #81, so I'm going to close this.

from wasmtime-go.

Thanks for the report! Unfortunately this is a difficult problem with no easy solution. As you've noticed there's a cycle between Rust's memory and Go's memory, concretetly:

• Rust has an instance in memory
• This instance has imported functions
• One imported function is a Go-defined function
• This Go-defined function closes over the Go instance
• The Go instance points to the Rust instance in memory

My recommendation would be to not close over Store-related objects and instead use Caller if you can to access values. FWIW a similar problem exists in Rust if you create cycles manually as well.

from wasmtime-go.

Right now the code that instantiates everything provides the memory as an import alongside those Go-defined functions. If the Go-defined functions close over that memory, I'm assuming that'll also create a cycle and we'll still see the leak.

It looks like the Go-defined functions can get access to exported functions from the module via the Caller. Is it possible to also get access to the memory via the Caller?

UPDATE: It looks like the Caller only provides access to exports. Would it be possible to extend the Caller to provide access to imported memory?

from wasmtime-go.

Yes unfortunately closing over a Memory would also create a leak. As you've seen though the intended use case to fix this is to use Caller to acquire the exported memory (or anything else if necessary). If an imported memory is reexported then that can be accessed, otherwise if it's only imported then you'll be able to close over it in the Go host function I think?

from wasmtime-go.

@alexcrichton thanks for the quick reply! I'll try out the re-export approach.

otherwise if it's only imported then you'll be able to close over it in the Go host function I think?

Can you explain this a bit more? I don't see how the Go host function can close over the memory without creating a leak.

from wasmtime-go.

Hm no you're right, I was mistaken. I'm thinking of a historical design of Wasmtime, but yeah nowadays if you close over anything connected to a Store you'll cause a leak.

from wasmtime-go.