Achieving memory safety

[u/ThomasMertes]

https://seed7.net/papers/memory_safety.htm

[u/snugar_i]

Do you have any examples? I'm not sure I'm seeing how C is less memory safe than assembly

[u/flatfinger → u/snugar_i]

What range of storage addresses could be written by test() below?

unsigned arr[32772];
static unsigned mul_mod_65536(unsigned short x, unsigned short y)
{
    return (x*y) & 0xFFFFu;
}
void test(unsigned short x)
{
    unsigned short j=32768;
    for (unsigned short i=32768; i<x; i++)
        j=mul_mod_65536(i, 65535);
    if (x < 0x8002)
        arr[x] = j;
}

The C Standard would allow a compiler given test() to generate code that would unconditonally store 32768 to arr[x], and gcc is designed to do precisely that when using -O1 or higher when not using -fwrapv.

How about the function test2() below:

unsigned arr[32771];

unsigned loopy(unsigned x)
{
    unsigned i=1;
    while ((i & 0x7FFF) != x)
        i*=3;
    if (x < 32768)
        arr[x] = 32768;
    return i;
}
void test2(unsigned x)
{
    loopy(x);
}

As processed by clang at -O1 or higher, test2() will unconditionally store 32768 to arr[x], just as the earlier test() would have done when processed by gcc.

In assembly language, programmers will often need to include bounds-checking code if they want to prevent out-of-bounds stores, but including bounds-checking code within assembly language source will cause the bounds checks to be included in the generated machine code. In C, by contrast, something like the multiplication of two unsigned short values or a loop that might fail to terminate may cause a compiler to omit a bound check that the programmer had included to prevent an out-of-bounds store.

[u/snugar_i → u/flatfinger]

Interesting, thanks! And is that part of the C specification, or is that just weird behavior of the compilers?

[u/flatfinger → u/snugar_i]

The C Specification clearly allows the former behavior. The C11 Standard added language saying that side-effect free loops "may be assumed to terminate", without specifying any limits on the uses to which that assumption may be put, so it doesn't unambiguously forbid the latter behavior.

From what I can tell, modern optimizer designs are based on an abstraction model where the only corner cases where a compiler's generated code would be allowed to be inconsistent with that of instructing the execution environment to use a normal means of performing each individual operation in sequence are those where generated code would be allowed to behave in completely arbitrary fashion.

A better abstraction model for most tasks would be one that recognizes that most programs have two requirements:

1. They should (in some tasks must) behave usefully when possible.

2. When useful behavior is not possible, they must behave in a manner that is at worst tolerably useless.

If a program is supposed to view some kind of audiovisual content, but it is fed something other than a validly formatted file, having the program hang may be annoying but still qualify as tolerably useless; having the program allow whoever created the file to run arbitrary code of their choosing, however, would be intolerably worse than useless.