Thanks for the fast response John. On Thu, Oct 1, 2015, at 04:51 PM, John Criswell wrote:> Dear Ed, > > First, someone has updated the DSA code in the poolalloc project to LLVM > 3.7, and a Master's student worked for me over the summer to update a > large chunk of SAFECode to LLVM 3.7. However, the update to LLVM 3.7 > isn't finished (we need to finish integrating SAFECode back into Clang), > and my student has opted to focus on his studies instead of finishing > the update, so the current status of SAFECode for LLVM 3.7 is that it's > nearly done but suspended. > > If you want the currently updated code, you can get it at > https://github.com/jtcriswell/safecode-llvm37.It's great that someone has begun work on this! I will look at it now. Can I ask what happened to the llvm-gcc (or dragonegg) front end? I haven't looked into how it works too much yet (I'm just starting out with LLVM/clang etc), but if integration with the clang front end works do you get dragonegg integration for free? From the web page I'm not sure if dragonegg is also bit-rotting, but a gcc front end would be useful for me.> > Second, if you need the pool allocation transform, then I must sadly > disappoint. The Automatic Pool Allocation (APA) transformation has > suffered bit-rot over the years, and we've stopped using it. We haven't > updated it to work with LLVM 3.7 and currently have no plans to do so. > > The code is still publicly available, so if you are sufficiently > motivated, you can update it and fix it if you would like.I do need the APA transform. I'm a bit confused as to how the DSA code is useful without APA? I'll cross my fingers and hope that the API changes to 3.7 aren't too bad. Am I right in thinking that llvm-3.2 is the last time this worked? Does the above github repo include the latest APA stuff (albeit disabled)?> > Just out of curiosity, what are you trying to accomplish? Depending on > what you need, there may be simpler approaches that will require less > engineering effort. >We really want the all singing all dancing safecode framework with APA as detailed in the 2005 TECS SafeCode paper (Memory Safety Without Garbage Collection for Embedded Applications). We are trying to build a C based embedded system that is type safe at the lowest possible run time cost. So I am also going to modify the uninitialized pointer MMU based stuff to work with the ARM Cortex M3 MPU. I don't think there are any shortcuts here (I'd be happy to be proved wrong though) - we need APA. Thanks again, Ed> Regards, > > John Criswell > > > On 10/1/15 10:51 AM, Ed Robbins via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm trying to get the pool allocator and safe code building against llvm > > trunk. I've run into a build error, and I see that in the past another > > user was told just not to build the pool allocator for use with safecode > > [1]. However, I really want the pool allocator transforms, so I just > > wanted to check why the suggestion was not to use it. Has it been > > superseded in some way by something else? Or is it just broken at the > > moment? I'll assume the latter for now and see if I can fix it... > > > > Cheers > > > > [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-July/088739.html > > > > > -- > John Criswell > Assistant Professor > Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester > http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/criswell >
On 10/8/15 5:37 AM, Ed Robbins wrote:> Thanks for the fast response John. > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015, at 04:51 PM, John Criswell wrote: >> Dear Ed, >> >> First, someone has updated the DSA code in the poolalloc project to LLVM >> 3.7, and a Master's student worked for me over the summer to update a >> large chunk of SAFECode to LLVM 3.7. However, the update to LLVM 3.7 >> isn't finished (we need to finish integrating SAFECode back into Clang), >> and my student has opted to focus on his studies instead of finishing >> the update, so the current status of SAFECode for LLVM 3.7 is that it's >> nearly done but suspended. >> >> If you want the currently updated code, you can get it at >> https://github.com/jtcriswell/safecode-llvm37. > It's great that someone has begun work on this! I will look at it now. > > Can I ask what happened to the llvm-gcc (or dragonegg) front end? I > haven't looked into how it works too much yet (I'm just starting out > with LLVM/clang etc), but if integration with the clang front end works > do you get dragonegg integration for free? From the web page I'm not > sure if dragonegg is also bit-rotting, but a gcc front end would be > useful for me.The original llvm-gcc (in which we modified gcc to produce LLVM bitcode) no longer exists. When GCC was extended to use plugins, someone created the DragonEgg plugin. I am not sure if that still exists. Is there a reason you need a GCC-based front-end? Clang is intended to be a drop-in replacement for GCC and supports many of the GCC extensions. FWIW, integrating SAFECode into Clang does not automatically give you DragonEgg support. Integrating into Clang simply makes it easier to run the SAFECode transformation passes after the LLVM passes have been run.>> Second, if you need the pool allocation transform, then I must sadly >> disappoint. The Automatic Pool Allocation (APA) transformation has >> suffered bit-rot over the years, and we've stopped using it. We haven't >> updated it to work with LLVM 3.7 and currently have no plans to do so. >> >> The code is still publicly available, so if you are sufficiently >> motivated, you can update it and fix it if you would like. > I do need the APA transform. I'm a bit confused as to how the DSA code > is useful without APA? I'll cross my fingers and hope that the API > changes to 3.7 aren't too bad. Am I right in thinking that llvm-3.2 is > the last time this worked? Does the above github repo include the latest > APA stuff (albeit disabled)?DSA is a points-to and call graph analysis. As such, it is used for many things in addition to APA and SAFECode. For example, the SMACK verifier uses DSA. The APA code has been bit rotting for awhile. While you can compile and run it with LLVM 3.2, it won't work as well as it did for the paper, and it probably needs some work to make it robust. Please remember that APA has always been a research prototype.> >> Just out of curiosity, what are you trying to accomplish? Depending on >> what you need, there may be simpler approaches that will require less >> engineering effort. >> > We really want the all singing all dancing safecode framework with APA > as detailed in the 2005 TECS SafeCode paper (Memory Safety Without > Garbage Collection for Embedded Applications). We are trying to build a > C based embedded system that is type safe at the lowest possible run > time cost. So I am also going to modify the uninitialized pointer MMU > based stuff to work with the ARM Cortex M3 MPU. I don't think there are > any shortcuts here (I'd be happy to be proved wrong though) - we need > APA.I see. If you just need to isolate processes on your system so that they don't overwrite each other, it looks like the ARM Cortex M3 MPU can do that. Is there a reason why that won't work? However, if you want to isolate processes using inferred type safety, you will need to address three significant challenges: 1) Due to changes in LLVM, DSA has a difficult time inferring types. In a nutshell, some LLVM optimizations turned typed-getelementptr (GEP) instructions into GEPs that use byte-level indexing. DSA was written with the assumption that GEPs carried high-level type information. I think this is fixable by refactoring DSA's type inference code to act more like Value Set Analysis: it would use a map between a 4-tuple and a type. The 4-tuple (a, b, c, d) describes a formula ax + b in which a and b denote offset and stride and c and d place a limit on the lower and upper bounds of x. c and d can be +- infinity, allowing the 4-tuple to denote a type that occurs in an unbounded array. As an FYI, there are multiple research groups interested in accurate points-to analysis results (mine included). I'll be holding a BoF at the LLVM Developer's meeting this year to discuss who needs what and if there's a way to develop it. 2) Making APA robust. In my personal opinion, the original APA may be more complicated than necessary for your application. APA currently creates context sensitive pools, which means that it needs to pass pool handles around. This requires transforming function signatures which makes inter-operating with external code a real pain. It also makes the transform complicated. A simpler design would be to create one pool for each type that DSA infers. The points-to analysis would not be sound (unless it unified all points-to sets that have the same type), but it would allow all pools (or nearly all pools) to be global variables, greatly simplifying the transformation. It would also continue to prevent the application from accessing data outside its allocated memory. 3) The version of SAFECode in that paper used the Omega constraint solver to prove that array accesses are safe. That code has long bit-rotted away, and its implementation was not the most efficient (it exec()'ed the Omega solver for every query). A better approach today would be to integrate the constraint solver into the compiler proper. Additionally, you now have other tools available, such as CVC4, Z3, and SMACK/Boogie, for building and solving the constraints. As an FYI, later versions of SAFECode use run-time checks for type-unsafe pools and array accesses so that it can support the full generality of C (see Dhurjati's PLDI 2007 paper and my SVA publications). You could probably do something simple in which type-safe data goes into pools and type-unsafe data goes into a large area for which loads and stores are subjected to simple SFI-like instrumentation (e.g., Google Native Client). There may be solutions in the middle of the spectrum between fast-but-difficult-to-implement and slow-but-easy-to-implement. Regards, John Criswell> Thanks again, > Ed > >> Regards, >> >> John Criswell >> >> >> On 10/1/15 10:51 AM, Ed Robbins via llvm-dev wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I'm trying to get the pool allocator and safe code building against llvm >>> trunk. I've run into a build error, and I see that in the past another >>> user was told just not to build the pool allocator for use with safecode >>> [1]. However, I really want the pool allocator transforms, so I just >>> wanted to check why the suggestion was not to use it. Has it been >>> superseded in some way by something else? Or is it just broken at the >>> moment? I'll assume the latter for now and see if I can fix it... >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> [1]http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-July/088739.html >>> >> -- >> John Criswell >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester >> http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/criswell >>-- John Criswell Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/criswell
Thanks again for the really nice response John. On Thu, Oct 8, 2015, at 10:14 PM, John Criswell wrote:> The original llvm-gcc (in which we modified gcc to produce LLVM bitcode) > no longer exists. When GCC was extended to use plugins, someone created > the DragonEgg plugin. I am not sure if that still exists. > > Is there a reason you need a GCC-based front-end? Clang is intended to > be a drop-in replacement for GCC and supports many of the GCC extensions.The only reason was to make it easier to drop into the toolchain. I don't anticipate that being a huge amount of work to switch to clang anyway, but I saw that SafeCode was originally using llvm-gcc so I thought that might make life easy.> Integrating into Clang simply makes it easier to run > the SAFECode transformation passes after the LLVM passes have been run.So basically it means you don't have to run safecode manually?> DSA is a points-to and call graph analysis. As such, it is used for > many things in addition to APA and SAFECode. For example, the SMACK > verifier uses DSA.Got it.> > The APA code has been bit rotting for awhile. While you can compile and > run it with LLVM 3.2, it won't work as well as it did for the paper, and > it probably needs some work to make it robust. Please remember that APA > has always been a research prototype. >I really want to bring all this into trunk. I've spent this afternoon chugging through minor API incompatibilities trying to get APA to build. Not there yet!> > We really want the all singing all dancing safecode framework with APA > > as detailed in the 2005 TECS SafeCode paper (Memory Safety Without > > Garbage Collection for Embedded Applications). We are trying to build a > > C based embedded system that is type safe at the lowest possible run > > time cost. So I am also going to modify the uninitialized pointer MMU > > based stuff to work with the ARM Cortex M3 MPU. I don't think there are > > any shortcuts here (I'd be happy to be proved wrong though) - we need > > APA. > > I see. > > If you just need to isolate processes on your system so that they don't > overwrite each other, it looks like the ARM Cortex M3 MPU can do that. > Is there a reason why that won't work?Maybe I should have been a bit clearer; we're really interested in full memory and type safety. We want to harden the system against memory corruption vulnerabilities. Process isolation isn't an issue, as we are in an embedded context where we don't have processes. I was really talking about setting uninitialised pointers to a value that is configured in the MPU to be inaccessible, and using a handler to abort in the case where an attempt is made to read/write to any of these pointers.> > However, if you want to isolate processes using inferred type safety, > you will need to address three significant challenges: > > 1) Due to changes in LLVM, DSA has a difficult time inferring types. In > a nutshell, some LLVM optimizations turned typed-getelementptr (GEP) > instructions into GEPs that use byte-level indexing. DSA was written > with the assumption that GEPs carried high-level type information. > > I think this is fixable by refactoring DSA's type inference code to act > more like Value Set Analysis: it would use a map between a 4-tuple and a > type. The 4-tuple (a, b, c, d) describes a formula ax + b in which a > and b denote offset and stride and c and d place a limit on the lower > and upper bounds of x. c and d can be +- infinity, allowing the 4-tuple > to denote a type that occurs in an unbounded array.This sounds like a good idea. I'm willing to give this a go, time permitting.> As an FYI, there are multiple research groups interested in accurate > points-to analysis results (mine included). I'll be holding a BoF at > the LLVM Developer's meeting this year to discuss who needs what and if > there's a way to develop it.That doesn't surprise me. If someone would like to do this it would be very handy from my point of view too!> > 2) Making APA robust. In my personal opinion, the original APA may be > more complicated than necessary for your application. APA currently > creates context sensitive pools, which means that it needs to pass pool > handles around. This requires transforming function signatures which > makes inter-operating with external code a real pain. It also makes the > transform complicated. > > A simpler design would be to create one pool for each type that DSA > infers. The points-to analysis would not be sound (unless it unified > all points-to sets that have the same type), but it would allow all > pools (or nearly all pools) to be global variables, greatly simplifying > the transformation. It would also continue to prevent the application > from accessing data outside its allocated memory.We aren't going to need to inter-operate with external code all that much (if at all), so perhaps this will not be an issue. DSA and the context sensitive pools of APA (despite the ugly transform) were originally what attracted us to SafeCode; we would like to remain sound.> > 3) The version of SAFECode in that paper used the Omega constraint > solver to prove that array accesses are safe. That code has long > bit-rotted away, and its implementation was not the most efficient (it > exec()'ed the Omega solver for every query). A better approach today > would be to integrate the constraint solver into the compiler proper. > Additionally, you now have other tools available, such as CVC4, Z3, and > SMACK/Boogie, for building and solving the constraints.We had already noticed that the limit to linear array access was way behind state of the art (we have a lot of experience with constraint solvers). Using an SMT solver would make sense, as you can use the theory that suits the particular problem - linear isn't good enough? You've got IDL, octagons etc. To start off with we'd like to get something running, even if it has limitations. Unless you think it's a really bad idea I will for the moment try to get the old APA working to some extent again. It isn't really an issue if I have to run APA and safecode as separate parts of the build process for the moment, or if parts of it are clunky, from our point of view it would just be good just to get some toy examples working relatively quickly.> > As an FYI, later versions of SAFECode use run-time checks for > type-unsafe pools and array accesses so that it can support the full > generality of C (see Dhurjati's PLDI 2007 paper and my SVA > publications). You could probably do something simple in which > type-safe data goes into pools and type-unsafe data goes into a large > area for which loads and stores are subjected to simple SFI-like > instrumentation (e.g., Google Native Client). There may be solutions in > the middle of the spectrum between fast-but-difficult-to-implement and > slow-but-easy-to-implement.We want speed speed speed! If we only support a (preferably large) subset of C it doesn't matter - this is better than having additional run time checks. Is there an option to warn whenever a run-time check is inserted? I'll check out some of the other papers. I read the TECS paper and gave a few of the others a skim, but looks like I missed some stuff. Cheers, Ed