similar to: [LLVMdev] Request for Review: SAFECode Patch

Dear All, We have a new release of Clang with SAFECode technology for detecting memory safety errors. Memory safety checking (SAFECode for short) can be turned on with a single command line switch to clang/clang++. The SAFECode techniques do not change the behavior of the clang/clang++ compilers in any way when the switch is turned off, so this can be used as a drop-in replacement for

John, The release source code (sc-main.tar) won't compile cleanly under Debian6-i386 (gcc/g++: 4.4.5). The compiler back trace is attached. Please fix it/them and repost. Or, 64b system is a requirement? Thank you Chuck llvm[4]: Compiling TypeRuntime.cpp for Release+Asserts build (PIC) cc1plus: warnings being treated as errors

On 5/24/12 5:41 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Kostya, I'm also curious to know where Nuno is going with this, and the > details of his design. I'm worried he might be reinventing the wheel. I'm > also worried that he may be inventing a square wheel :) I believe Nuno's goal is to prevent run-time exploitation of software. Nuno, please correct me if I'm wrong. And

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:23 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 5/24/12 5:41 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > > Hi Kostya, I'm also curious to know where Nuno is going with this, and > the > > details of his design. I'm worried he might be reinventing the wheel. > I'm > > also worried that he may be inventing a square wheel :) > >

Hi, My apologies for the trouble. I've disabled building DynamicTypeChecks for now (r138224) and now it builds cleanly on 32bit for me here. As for SAFECode support for 32bit vs 64bit, I believe 32bit should work just fine although I haven't personally tested this. Let me know if you have any further issues/questions. ~Will On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at

John, We (more accurately, John Criswell and Brice Lin) are working on a debugging version of SAFECode right now, which should be robust enough to play with soon. What kinds of embedded codes do you have in mind? One of our goals has been to minimize or even eliminate run-time checks for embedded code that meets certain restrictions. You can see the following paper for more details:

On 2/26/15 9:54 AM, Jyoti Rajendra Allur wrote: > Hello All, > I am looking at exploring what benefits SAFECode has to offer over clang S.A and llvm's instrumentation tools like memory sanitizer and address sanitizer. Are you looking for an off-the-shelf tool, or are you looking for approaches to use in your own tool? > I could come up with the following that are not provided in

SVA/safecode looks interesting. Is it available to play with? I grepped for strings such as "sva" "secure" "safecode" in the LLVM source tree and didn't find anything, nor did I see obvious links to implementations from the project web pages. In the short term, questions I'd be interested in answering are: What happens when embedded codes that I care

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

Hello, I have tried a lot fix this error but am not able to can you please find me a solution am trying to compile the SAFECode in Cygwin Environment to work for windows. used make -j4 command to make the files in cygwin i have got this error make[5]: Leaving directory '/home/uidr7475/Work/LLVM_OBJ/projects/safecode/tools/clang/include' /usr/bin/cp: cannot stat

Török Edwin wrote: > On 2009-11-14 00:57, John Criswell wrote: > >> Dear LLVMers, >> >> We are happy to announce an alpha release of the SAFECode compiler. It >> is now available for download from the LLVM public Subversion >> repository. SAFECode uses a set of analysis passes and program >> transformations to provide strong memory safety

Török Edwin wrote: > [snip] > > I applied the attached patch to make it compile on my box (Debian > x86_64), only to find out that x86_64 is not supported :( > This architecture is not supported by the pool allocator! > Aborted > Thanks for the patch. What options do I give to the patch command to apply it to the source code? Although there's no documentation about

Hi Nuno, I noticed your commits related to -fbounds-checking and have some questions. The functionality of this new phase seems to (partially?) overlap with AddressSanitizer and SAFECode, so I am curious how would you compare the two existing tools with the new one. Earlier you wrote: >> So the main idea of this new flag is not for debugging, but rather for production. >> This means

John Criswell wrote: > If you're interested in SAFECode, the first step is to get SAFECode > working with a newer version of LLVM. A Master's student did some > work on this last summer with LLVM 3.7 but didn't finish. It would > now need to be updated to LLVM 3.8 (though I suppose a completed LLVM > 3.7 port would be fine with me). > > After that, there are

Hello All, I am looking at exploring what benefits SAFECode has to offer over clang S.A and llvm's instrumentation tools like memory sanitizer and address sanitizer. I could come up with the following that are not provided in ASAN/MSAN/Clang S.A -> dangling pointer error and detection -> crashes in system libraries due to security vulnerabilities. In the process, I wanted to run the

Dear Michael, If you're interested in SAFECode, the first step is to get SAFECode working with a newer version of LLVM. A Master's student did some work on this last summer with LLVM 3.7 but didn't finish. It would now need to be updated to LLVM 3.8 (though I suppose a completed LLVM 3.7 port would be fine with me). After that, there are some interesting projects on which to

On 4/3/13 8:21 AM, Marcelo Sousa wrote: > I am interested in type-based verification of LLVM IR in the areas of > certified compilation and software Can you explain what you mean by type-based verification? Do you mean that you want to use a set of typing rules to perform verification, or do you mean something else? > verification. It seems to me that the LLVM IR type system is

On 4/6/12 12:50 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > I'd like some similar work to be done, although I view it a bit > differently. > This might be a separate analysis pass that knows nothing about ASAN > or SAFECode > and appends metadata nodes to memory access instructions saying things > like This is a good idea but is the wrong way to implement the idea. LLVM passes are

On 3/30/12 1:08 PM, Raphael Ernani Rodrigues wrote: > Dear LLVMers, > > My name is Raphael Ernani, and I am doing my MsC at the Federal > University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. I have been using LLVM for a > while, and I would like to participate in this year's Summer of Code. > One particular idea, in your "open projects" page caught my eye, and I > decided to

Hi, everyone. I'm a senior at Swarthmore College and would love to work with LLVM this summer. I'm interested in systems languages and security, and I'll start a PhD on these topics this fall. I also do a good deal of open source development and auditing with OpenBSD and a variety of other projects. I spent last year's GSoC doing security auditing for Pidgin/libpurple. GSoC seems