I think you're getting hung up on this idea that if the spec doesn't leave something undefined, then implementations can't *ever* deviate from what otherwise would be defined. It just means that they can't deviate by default. You can pass flags that change behavior.
Conversation
No, that's not what I've been saying. I think it would be a serious regression to break compatibility with safe implementations by making it correct to be incompatible with them. You want to massively roll back safety and security, especially if you want to remove it by default.
2
1
It's not a big deal if the spec says that overflow wraps. Anyway, a most useful version of trap-on-overflow would do this for unsigned, which isn't allowed in the current spec. It's fine to have security technologies that create interesting new behaviors.
2
The "breaking interface contracts is a security enhancement" view is a very very harmful one. It's the opposite.
3
7
Systems code should be written in something higher level than assembler but lower level than the symbolic execution system that C claims to provide currently. “Just use assembly” or “just use a type safe language” aren’t useful answers.
1
Systems code benefits from memory and type safety even more than most other code because it's often in a position of trust and privilege. Using a language where unsafety can be contained and quickly wrapped into safe APIs is certainly useful advice for newly written systems code.
1
2
6
The expectations of software robustness and security have increased a lot, and it's simply not realistic to achieve it while using unsafe tools making it much more difficult to write safe code. Writing something complex like an safe ext4 implementation is C is not very realistic.
1
5
i.e. writing the entire thing with zero memory corruption bugs for an attacker to exploit either via an attacker controlled filesystem or an application. Drivers similarly have to be written treating the hardware and code using them as adversarial. Choice of tools is important.
1
2
FS drivers do not belong in privileged contexts. The FS driver for an untrusted FS should be executing in a context where it can do nothing worse than store or retrieve wrong data.
1
2
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
No, that's not what he means. He's saying that an external file system should have a sandboxed filesystem driver, so that exploiting a bug inside it doesn't immediately grant complete control over the entire system and at least requires privesc to escape (likely via the kernel).
Try reading the overview in events.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/upl. Finding a Linux kernel vulnerability is not hard. Literally hundreds of bugs are found by syszkiller every month and many are not fixed. Most are memory corruption. There are simply too many to even fix all discovered bugs.
2
5
It's a joke to claim that using a memory unsafe language at this scale is going fine when a project with as many developers as the Linux kernel lacks the resources to even address discovered vulnerabilities, let alone reaching the point that hundreds are not found per month.
1
Show replies
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Feel free to look through the hundreds of ext4 CVEs and consider reading what I pointed you towards:
events.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/upl
kroah.com/log/blog/2018/
2
Show replies