[webkit-dev] RenderArena: Teaching an old dog new tricks

[Ojan Vafai]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Geoffrey Garen <ggaren at apple.com> wrote:

> Hi Eric.
>
> Here are some problems in RenderArena that I know of:
>
> - Grows memory without bound
> - Duplicates the functionality of FastMalloc
> - Makes allocation error-prone (allocation in the wrong arena is sometimes
> a leak, sometimes a use-after-free, and sometimes a heizenbug of the two)
> - Makes allocation verbose (you have to thread an arena pointer everywhere)
> - Makes object lifetime complicated (all objects are implicitly tied to a
> single owner they may outlive)
> - Uses C-style macros and manual initialization and destruction, instead
> of modern WebKit C++ style
>
> You didn't mention any of these problems in your email, so I'll assume you
> weren't aware of them.
>
> Considering these problems now, please don't use RenderArena in more
> places.
>
> > Slab-allocators (i.e. RenderArena) hand out memory all from a single
> > region, guaranteeing (among other things) that free'd objects can only
> > be ever overwritten by other objects from the same pool.  This makes
> > it much harder, for example to find a Use-After-Free of a RenderBlock
> > and then fill that RenderBlock's memory (and vtable pointer) with
> > arbitrary memory (like the contents of a javascript array).
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_allocation
>
> This is magical thinking. RenderArena is no different from FastMalloc.
>
> (1) RenderArena recycles by object size, just like FastMalloc.
>
> (2) FastMalloc is a slab allocator, just like RenderArena.
>
> (3) RenderArena grows by calling FastMalloc.
>
> Isolating object types from each other -- and specifically isolating
> objects of arbitrary size and contents like arrays -- is an interesting
> idea. RenderArena is neither necessary nor sufficient for implementing this
> feature.
>
> The only reason RenderArena seems isolated from other object types is
> social, not technical: we actively discourage using RenderArena, so few
> object types currently use it.
>
> > Since RenderArena is generic, the current plan to move it to WTF (as
> > by Chris Marrin suggested back in
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org/msg12672.html),
> > clean up the code further, and investigate wider deployment (like to
> > the DOM tree) for the security benefit and possible perf win.
> > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101087
>
> Having dealt with the specific technical question of RenderArena, I'd like
> to briefly discuss the meta-level of how the WebKit project works.
>
> Sam Weinig and I both provided review feedback saying that using
> RenderArena more was a bad idea (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id<https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101087#c9>

*This seems completely unfair *

*
> *

*Geoff*

*
> *

*_______________________________________________*

*webkit-dev mailing list*

*webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org*

*http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev*

=101087#c9 <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101087#c9>,
> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101087#c18). Nonetheless, you
> r+ed a patch to move in that direction, and you describe it here as the
> "current plan" for WebKit.
>
> I'm a little disappointed that, as individual contributors, Chris Neklar
> and Chris Evans didn't realize or understand the problems listed above, and
> didn't tackle them. However, the mistake is understandable: Chris and Chris
> are new to WebKit. The WebKit project has a mechanism for resolving
> mistakes like this: patch review.
>
> Your job as a reviewer is to understand the zeitgeist of the project, to
> use good judgement, and to r- patches that make mistakes like this. A bad
> patch is only a small nuisance. But the small nuisance turns into a major
> problem when you, as a reviewer, take a bad patch, mark it r+, and declare
> it the current direction of the project, despite the objections of two
> other reviewers who are senior members of the project.
>

As someone outside all these discussions, this seems like a completely
unfair characterization of what happened. Sam voiced an objection, then
there was a bunch of discussion in which Chris made an argument that Eric
found compelling. Many days passed, then Eric r+'ed. Unless there was other
discussion not on the bug that I missed, your objection came after Eric's
r+. I don't see the process problem here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20121114/205a21ce/attachment.html>