go-wasm-bake
quickjs-emscripten
go-wasm-bake | quickjs-emscripten | |
---|---|---|
1 | 21 | |
12 | 1,130 | |
- | - | |
0.0 | 9.4 | |
over 5 years ago | 20 days ago | |
Kotlin | TypeScript | |
MIT License | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
go-wasm-bake
-
Bytecode Alliance
> So how does this work? Before the code is deployed, as part of a build step, we run the JS code using the JS engine to the end of initialization.
I also did basically this exact same thing for Go [0] when I realized their initialization in WASM was very heavy[1]. Basically I ran up until the real Go main started which includes a ton of runtime package/data initialization, and took a snapshot of the data and baked it back into the WASM and removed all the pre-main code. Granted this was years ago so I don't know if it still works on generated code today, but the idea is the same.
I think languages compiling to WASM, if they can, should run their initialization code and snapshot the data. A lot of people don't realize the number of init instructions to bootstrap a runtime these days. Go alone has thousands of instructions just to initialize the unicode tables.
0 - https://github.com/cretz/go-wasm-bake
quickjs-emscripten
-
New QuickJS Release
Based on your comment below I think you figured out the difference - but if you're looking to execute JS, you can pick between ShadowRealm (where available, or using a polyfill) or my library quickjs-emscripten.
Pros of quickjs-emscripten over ShadowRealm:
- You can use quickjs today in any browser with WASM. ShadowRealm isn't available yet, and polyfills have had security issues in the past. See https://www.figma.com/blog/an-update-on-plugin-security/
- In ShadowRealm eval, untrusted code can consume arbitrary CPU cycles. With QuickJS, you can control the CPU time used during an `eval` using an [interrupt handler] that's called periodically during the eval.
- In ShadowRealm eval, untrusted code can allocate arbitrary amounts of memory. With QuickJS, you can control both the [stack size] and the [heap size] available inside the runtime.
- quickjs-emscripten can do interesting things with custom module loaders and facades that allow synchronous code inside the runtime to call async code on the host.
Pros of ShadowRealm over QuickJS:
- ShadowRealm will (presumably?) execute code using your native runtime, probably v8, JavaScriptCore, or SpiderMonkey. Quickjs is orders of magnitude slower than JIT'd javascript performance of v8 etc. It's also slower than v8/JSC's interpreters, although not by a huge amount. See [benchmarks] from 2019.
- You can easily call and pass values to ShadowRealm imported functions. Talking to quickjs-emscripten guest code requires a lot of fiddly and manual object building.
- Overall the quickjs(-emscripten) API is verbose, and requires manual memory management of references to values inside the quickjs runtime.
[interrupt handler]: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten/blob/main/doc...
[stack size]: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten/blob/main/doc...
[heap size]: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten/blob/main/doc...
[benchmarks]: https://bellard.org/quickjs/bench.html
-
Extism Makes WebAssembly Easy
The thing I want to achieve with WebAssembly is still proving a lot harder than I had anticipated.
I want to be able to take strings of untrusted code provided by users and execute them in a safe sandbox.
I have all sorts of things I want this for - think custom templates for a web application, custom workflow automation scripts (Zapier-style), running transformations against JSON data.
When you're dealing with untrusted code you need a really robust sandbox. WebAssembly really should be that sandbox.
I'd like to support Python, JavaScript and maybe other languages too. I want to take a user-provided string of code in one of those languages and execute that in a sandbox with a strict limit on both memory usage and time taken (so I can't be crashed by a "while True" loop). If memory or time limit are exceeded, I want to get an exception which I can catch and return an error message to the user.
I've been exploring options for this for quite a while now. The furthest I've got was running Pyodide inside of Deno: https://til.simonwillison.net/deno/pyodide-sandbox
Surprisingly I've not found a good pattern for running a JavaScript interpreter in a WASM sandbox yet. https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten looks promising but I've not found the right recipe to call it from server-side Python or Deno yet.
Can Extism help with this? I'm confident I'm not the only person who's looking for a solution here!
-
Node on Web. Use Nodejs freely in your browser with Linux infrastructure.
"Safely execute untrusted Javascript in your Javascript, and execute synchronous code that uses async functions" quickjs-emscripten, NPM
-
Sandboxing JavaScript Code
This maybe, as a start?
https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten
-
Hacker News top posts: Nov 20, 2022
QuickJS Running in WebAssembly\ (17 comments)
-
QuickJS Running in WebAssembly
The library was inspired by Figma’s blog posts about their plug-in system: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten#background
-
Show HN: Run unsafe user generated JavaScript in the browser
If you need to call into user-generated Javascript synchronously or have greater control over the sandbox environment, you can use WebAssembly to run a Javascript interpreter: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten#quickjs-emscr...
QuickJS in WebAssembly is much slower than your browser's native Javascript runtime, but possibly faster than async calls using postMessage. As an added bonus, it can make async functions in the host appear to be synchronous inside the sandbox using asyncify: https://emscripten.org/docs/porting/asyncify.html.
-
Why Would Anyone Need JavaScript Generator Functions?
You can use One Weird Trick with generator functions to make your code "generic" over synchronicity. I use this technique to avoid needing to implement both sync and async versions of some functions in my quickjs-emscripten library.
The great part about this technique as a library author is that unlike choosing to use a Promise return type, this technique is invisible in my public API. I can write a function like `export function coolAlgorithm(getData: (request: I) => O | Promise): R | Promise`, and we get automatic performance improvement if the user's function happens to return synchronously, without mystery generator stuff showing up in the function signature.
Helper to make a function that can be either sync or async: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten/blob/ff211447...
Uses: https://cs.github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten?q=yield*+l...
-
Why Am I Excited About WebAssembly?
This seems like a pretty nice, recently enabled way of getting a sandboxed js environment: QuickJS compiled to WASM: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten.
What are some alternatives?
wizer - The WebAssembly Pre-Initializer
wasmtime - A fast and secure runtime for WebAssembly
rr - Record and Replay Framework
wasmer - 🚀 The leading Wasm Runtime supporting WASIX, WASI and Emscripten
TablaM - The practical relational programing language for data-oriented applications
go - The Go programming language
iPlug2 - C++ Audio Plug-in Framework for desktop, mobile and web
mach - zig game engine & graphics toolkit