[Bug]: Process fail-fast (0xC0000409) on Windows x64 when guest traps under .NET 9+ (CET shadow stack)
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
Evaluación
- Dificultad
- 5/5
- Tiempo estimado
- Más de una semana
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 42/100
- Tipo de issue
- Error
- Claridad
- Bastante claro
- Estado de actividad
- Activo
- Stack tecnológico
- csharp, wasm
- Área
- backend, operating-systems, security
Línea de trabajo
La reproducción mínima está en Program.cs; primero ejecuta su apphost generado en net8.0 y net9.0+/net10.0 con la matriz de CET. Después inspecciona la continuación de recuperación de traps de Windows de wasmtime.dll y los metadatos apphost emitidos; se considera terminado cuando los guest traps señalizados por hardware vuelven a aparecer como TrapException bajo CET, mientras el comportamiento de fuel y epoch permanece intacto.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Descripción
Summary
On Windows x64, a WebAssembly guest trap that is hardware-signaled (unreachable, memory out-of-bounds, integer divide-by-zero) terminates the host process with 0xC0000409 (STATUS_STACK_BUFFER_OVERRUN, exit -1073740791) instead of surfacing as a catchable Wasmtime.TrapException.
Root cause (confirmed): Intel CET / hardware shadow stack enforcement. Since .NET 9 Preview 6, the .NET SDK marks the generated Windows apphost executable with /CETCOMPAT (documented breaking change). This enables the hardware shadow stack for the process. Wasmtime's Windows trap recovery performs a non-local thread-context restore to a landing pad that is neither present on the shadow stack nor registered in an EH continuation allow-list, so Windows terminates the process.
Cooperative metered traps (fuel / epoch) are not affected — they return through the normal call path and never perform a non-local context restore.
[!NOTE]
This issue was originally filed as a .NET 10 regression with an SEH / security-cookie theory, and stated that disabling CET had no effect. All three of those claims were wrong. They are struck through in Retracted claims at the bottom rather than deleted, since earlier comments refer to them. Body corrected 2026-08-17.
Environment
| OS | Windows 11, build 26200 (x64) |
| CPU | AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS (Zen 3+, shadow-stack capable) |
| SDK | .NET SDK 10.0.302 |
| Runtimes | Microsoft.NETCore.App 8.0.30 and 10.0.10 |
| Package | Wasmtime 44.0.0 |
| System mitigation policy | UserShadowStack: NOTSET (OS defaults, no per-machine override) |
| Configurations | Reproduces in both Debug and Release, deterministically (5/5 runs) |
Although the feature is branded Intel CET, this reproduces on an AMD CPU — it is not vendor-specific.
The original report listed ".NET SDK: .NET 10.0.10". That figure is the runtime version (Microsoft.NETCore.App 10.0.10), not the SDK version; .NET SDK versions use feature bands (10.0.3xx), and the SDK here is 10.0.302. Both are listed above under the correct names.
Affected .NET versions: 9.0 and later (anything whose apphost is /CETCOMPAT-marked). .NET 8 and earlier are unaffected.
Trap matrix
Each scenario runs in its own process so that a fail-fast in one cannot mask the others.
| Guest trap | .NET 8 | .NET 10 (CET on) | .NET 10 (CET disabled) |
|---|---|---|---|
unreachable |
✅ Unreachable |
❌ 0xC0000409 |
✅ Unreachable |
| memory out-of-bounds load | ✅ MemoryOutOfBounds |
❌ 0xC0000409 |
✅ MemoryOutOfBounds |
| integer divide-by-zero | ✅ IntegerDivisionByZero |
❌ 0xC0000409 |
✅ IntegerDivisionByZero |
| fuel exhaustion | ✅ OutOfFuel |
✅ OutOfFuel |
✅ OutOfFuel |
| epoch interruption | ✅ Interrupt |
✅ Interrupt |
✅ Interrupt |
Minimal reproduction
<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk">
<PropertyGroup>
<OutputType>Exe</OutputType>
<TargetFramework>net10.0</TargetFramework>
<ImplicitUsings>enable</ImplicitUsings>
<Nullable>enable</Nullable>
</PropertyGroup>
<ItemGroup>
<PackageReference Include="Wasmtime" Version="44.0.0" />
</ItemGroup>
</Project>
Program.cs:
using Wasmtime;
Console.WriteLine("Starting Wasmtime probe on Windows x64...");
using var engine = new Engine();
using var module = Module.FromText(engine, "unreachable_test", @"
(module
(func (export ""run"")
unreachable
)
)
");
using var linker = new Linker(engine);
using var store = new Store(engine);
var instance = linker.Instantiate(store, module);
var run = instance.GetFunction("run");
if (run is null)
{
Console.Error.WriteLine("Failed to find exported function 'run'");
return 1;
}
try
{
Console.WriteLine("Invoking guest function that traps...");
run.Invoke();
Console.Error.WriteLine("FAIL: Expected TrapException was not thrown.");
return 1;
}
catch (TrapException ex)
{
Console.WriteLine($"SUCCESS: Caught expected TrapException: {ex.Message}");
return 0;
}
Steps:
- Build and run the generated
.exeonnet8.0→ printsSUCCESS, exit0. - Rebuild on
net10.0(ornet9.0) and run the generated.exe→ process terminates, exit-1073740791.
Run the generated apphost
.exe, notdotnet run/dotnet app.dll.dotnet.exeis not CET-marked, so launching through it hides the bug entirely.
Root-cause evidence
Isolation controls. Each row changes exactly one variable against the net10.0 baseline:
| Experiment | Result | Eliminates |
|---|---|---|
net8.0 app on .NET 8 runtime |
✅ exit 0 | — (baseline) |
net8.0 app forced onto the .NET 10.0.10 runtime (DOTNET_ROLL_FORWARD=LatestMajor, resolution confirmed via COREHOST_TRACE=1) |
✅ exit 0 | the runtime version |
net10.0 app with DOTNET_LegacyExceptionHandling=1 |
❌ 0xC0000409 |
the new managed EH model added in .NET 9 |
net10.0 app with lib/net8.0/Wasmtime.Dotnet.dll swapped in |
❌ 0xC0000409 |
the managed assembly / package asset selection |
net10.0 app launched via dotnet.exe instead of its apphost |
✅ exit 0 | → isolates the host executable |
net10.0 apphost with the CET bit patched to 0 |
✅ exit 0 | → causation, single bit |
net10.0 rebuilt with <CetCompat>false</CetCompat> |
✅ exit 0 | → supported workaround |
Two of these deserve emphasis:
- The .NET 10 runtime is not implicated. The same runtime executes the same IL successfully when the process is launched by a non-CET host.
- Package asset selection is a red herring. A
net10.0project resolveslib/net9.0/Wasmtime.Dotnet.dllwhilenet8.0resolveslib/net8.0/…; those files differ in content (identical length, same44.0.0.0assembly version). "The net9 managed build is at fault" is a natural first guess and it is wrong — forcing thenet8.0assembly into thenet10.0app still fail-fasts.
PE-level state. IMAGE_DLLCHARACTERISTICS_EX_CET_COMPAT (debug directory type 20) and the load-config EH continuation table:
| Binary | CET compat | GuardFlags |
EH continuation targets |
|---|---|---|---|
apphost (net8.0 build) |
absent | 0x10417500 |
12 |
apphost (net10.0 build) |
SET | 0x10417500 |
12 |
dotnet.exe (10.0.10) |
absent | — | — |
coreclr.dll (10.0.10) |
— | 0x10417500 |
1017 |
wasmtime.dll (44.0.0, win-x64) |
absent | 0x00000100 |
0 |
The apphost carried /EHCONT in both .NET 8 and .NET 10. What .NET 9 changed is the CETCOMPAT bit that makes the constraint enforced — not the presence of continuation metadata. wasmtime.dll registers zero EH continuation targets and is not CFG-instrumented, so no address it continues to can be on an allow-list, by construction.
Workaround
Opt the application out of CET:
<PropertyGroup>
<CetCompat>false</CetCompat>
</PropertyGroup>
This restores correct TrapException behavior for every trap kind. Verify the flag actually landed in the emitted binary — an incremental build will silently reuse an already-generated CET-marked apphost and the property will appear to do nothing:
dotnet build -c Release -p:CetCompat=false --no-incremental
Trade-off: this disables ROP protection for the whole process, so it is a mitigation rather than a fix.
Alternatively, opt the specific executable out via Windows Security / exploit-protection policy (UserShadowStack).
Proposed upstream resolution
wasmtime-dotnet (or Wasmtime's Windows trap handling) needs to make its trap-recovery continuation target legal under CET. The correct mechanism depends on where that landing pad lives, which I have not established:
- if it is static code inside
wasmtime.dll(asetjmp-style recovery point) → building that library with/EHCONT(plus CFG) is sufficient; - if it is JIT-generated code →
SetProcessDynamicEHContinuationTargetsmust be called at runtime as code regions are published.
At minimum, shipping a win-x64 wasmtime.dll that is CET-aware would let .NET 9+ consumers keep shadow-stack protection enabled.
What I did not do: I did not attach a debugger to capture the faulting continuation address or the fail-fast subcode, so the specific RtlRestoreContext/NtContinue attribution is inference from the documented CET contract, not a direct observation. My measurements stop at "wasmtime.dll registers zero continuation targets." Happy to run that debugger session if it would help.
Retracted claims from the original report
Preserved for reference because earlier comments respond to them.
"This is a .NET 10 regression; .NET 8 works."→ The trigger landed in .NET 9 Preview 6. .NET 8 does work, but .NET 9 is equally affected; I simply went 8 → 10 and never tested 9."Disabling CET (Hardware-enforced Stack Protection) does not alter the behavior."→ False. Disabling CET fixes it completely, on every trap kind. My original observation was almost certainly an incremental build reusing the CET-marked apphost — the rebuild reported success in 0.39 s and emitted an exe whose CET bit was still set."Changes to SEH stack unwinding or security cookies in .NET 10 conflict with Wasmtime's native exception handler."→ No evidence.DOTNET_LegacyExceptionHandling=1does not help, which specifically rules out the .NET 9+ managed exception-handling rewrite.
Still standing from the original report: metered fuel/epoch traps behave correctly (re-verified above). The claim that Linux hosts (POSIX signals) are unaffected is carried over from the original report and was not re-tested in this round — though it is consistent with the mechanism, since CET shadow-stack enforcement is a Windows process mitigation.
- Lenguaje dominante
- C#
- Estrellas
- 519
- Forks
- 70
- Merge medio
- 12 h 14 min
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 11
Preparar el entorno
Este proyecto no incluye contenedor de desarrollo, Dockerfile ni guía de contribución, así que la configuración corre por tu cuenta: empieza por su README y consulta nuestra guía para la primera contribución para los pasos generales.
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Más de bytecodealliance/wasmtime-dotnet
-
wasip3 supportAbierto
Dificultad 5/5 Más de una semana Aptitud para principiantes 32/100
bytecodealliance/wasmtime-dotnet#350 · 9 comentarios ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 4/5 3-5 días Aptitud para principiantes 38/100
bytecodealliance/wasmtime-dotnet#349 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 5/5 Más de una semana Aptitud para principiantes 20/100
bytecodealliance/wasmtime-dotnet#347 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
WasmGCAbierto
Dificultad 5/5 Más de una semana Aptitud para principiantes 25/100
bytecodealliance/wasmtime-dotnet#342 · 8 comentarios ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 4/5 3-5 días Aptitud para principiantes 35/100
bytecodealliance/wasmtime-dotnet#331 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
Todos los issues de bytecodealliance/wasmtime-dotnet
Issues similares
-
[BUG] Still libmicrohttpd dependency is not removed properly from External-Dependency-Info.txt fileAbiertotype/bug
Dificultad 1/5 Menos de una hora Aptitud para principiantes 72/100
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
[辞書] かんそうりつ->乾燥率Abierto辞書
Dificultad 1/5 Menos de una hora Aptitud para principiantes 62/100
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
bug good first issue
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 76/100
thomhurst/TUnit#7201 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 1/5 Menos de una hora Aptitud para principiantes 88/100
ArduPilot/MissionPlanner#3826 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
MongoDB integration tests fail on newer GitHub Actions runner kernelsPosiblemente ocupada @nmummau la tomó hoy. Abierto
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 74/100
Eventuous/eventuous#626 · 2 comentarios ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 7 días