On Aug 3, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Zoltan Herczeg wrote: > Hi, > > I saw a lot of paches about changing the memory allocation behaviour of > JavaScriptCore, and would like to start a discussion about the long term > purpose of these changes. If I understand corectly, the aim is to limit > the memory consumption of JavaScripCore to a certain level, and keep the > browser alive when a bad code tries to allocate a huge memory area and the > browser forced to crash (is it?).
Hey Zoltan, Currently I don't think we have any goals to constrain JavaScriptCore's memory usage in quite the way you suggest – though I don't think it's a bad idea at all. We really have two things going on re memory at the minute. One is to move all JIT code into a single VM allocation (but only on the platforms where it makes sense to do so), and another is to investigate copying collection. We currently use a single VM allocation for JIT code buffers on x86-64, and by doing so we can ensure that all JIT code falls within a 2Gb region, and as such all branches within JIT code can be linked with ±31bit relative offsets. There are further advantages to the approach of performing a single VM allocation up front. This may be faster on some platforms than frequent calls to mmap/munmap for individual pools, and some platforms may be limited on the number of such allocation that can be performed (e.g. on Symbian on old ARMs are limited number of RChunks can be created). Whilst I don't expect all platforms to switch to this form of memory allocation, I do expect it to be used further in the future (particularly on platforms like ARM, where the limited branch ranges may mean that it is useful to try to keep JIT code allocations close together). The fixed pool allocator does come at a cost that it does introduce a new resource cap that web pages could hit through heavy use, hence current work in progress to be able to at least make failure in these cases be more graceful than a crash. > In practice we could build a sandbox around JavaScriptCore (maybe one for > each page) and keep every allocation there isn'it? This pobably mmap-ed > region could be used by ExecutableAllocator, GarbageCollector, and by > other regular allocations. We currently try to prevent runaway JavaScript code from crashing JSC by allocating too much memory. There is a question here of what I mean by 'runaway', and what qualifies as 'too much'. :-) Our current definition of 'too much' is that we allow you to allocate up to the point that a malloc actually fails, at which point, in cases where a memory allocation is very directly triggered by JS code execution (e.g. a string or array growing too large) we will throw a JS exception, rather than allowing a CRASH() to take the whole browser down. This certainly seems an improvement over just crashing on pages with huge datasets, but there seem to be two glaring weaknesses. It certainly seems questionable whether we should really allow you to get all the way to the point of malloc failing before we think you've used enough memory – most people would probably prefer their web pages could not exhaust system resources to that level. Secondly, we only recover gracefully in cases where memory is allocated directly from JS actions, which probably guards against crashes in a lot of cases where we're just dealing with a program with a large dataset – but in cases of malicious code an attacker could exhaust most memory with large JS objects (long strings, arrays), then deliberately perform actions that require allocation of internal object to try to trigger a CRASH. A better memory sandbox for JSC, that capped memory usage at a more reasonable level, and that protected against memory exhaustion from allocation of internal data structures too, would certainly sound like it has potential to be a good thing. To make JSC fully robust from malicious code crashing the browser by exhausting memory would probably mean changes to WebCore too, since an attacker wanting to crash the browser could make DOM calls that allocate data structures until we ran out of memory in WebCore and hit a CRASH – but even without this, as a JSC only change, this may be an improvement. > I also saw a patch about moving garbage collector, that is also an > interesting area. Yes, a very interesting area, that Nathan has been doing some great initial work on. The work on a copying collector is larger and longer term project, and is primarily motivated by performance. A copying collector is a step towards a generational collector, and with it smaller GC pauses and hopefully less marking leading to lower overall GC overhead. cheers, G. > > Regards, > Zoltan > > > _______________________________________________ > squirrelfish-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/squirrelfish-dev _______________________________________________ squirrelfish-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/squirrelfish-dev
