This must have been before I started reading this thread, but I know of the CCured project by George Necula et.al, which is a C-to-C translator:
https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~weimerw/p/p477-necula.pdf On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 6:22 PM robert engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Again, what is wrong with the bounds checking/memory protection > library/technique for C I referred you to? Even a decrease in performance > will probably still be on par or better than the equivalent Go program. > > Much simpler and efficient. > > On Jan 10, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Jesper Louis Andersen < > jesper.louis.ander...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 7:55 PM 'Thomas Bushnell, BSG' via golang-nuts < > golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> I'm curious about why transpilation would have significantly mitigated >> the Heartbleed bug. >> >> > Heartbleed is a bug which relies on two things: > > - Failure to do proper bounds checking > - Allocation of a buffer which is not initialized to some zero-value, and > which straddles memory it shouldn't. > > Many programming languages are constructed such that they address both of > the above problems at the semantics level, and thus they avoid the really > dangerous part of the bug, which is the leak of information, downgrading > the bug to a denial of service attack, or even also mitigating that part of > the bug. Array access is checked against the arrays bounds, and buffer > allocated memory is properly 0-initialized before use. > > Compilation from one language to another might have the side-effect of > changing the semantics of the program because of the above observations. > Thus making a previously unsafe program safe. In principle we want to be > clever: augment the program with new safety semantics, but without changing > the meaning of the rest of the program in any way. > > Given there is a very large body of C code out there, live, we want to > take an approach like the above: > > - A rewrite, into say Rust because it is currently popular, runs the risk > of re-introducing faults in the programs which were removed through > corrections over the years. > - We rewrite too much, where we should reuse. > - C is a remarkably stable programming language in that most older C code > still runs in this day and age. More or less, there are some caveats, which > the compilation idea ought to address. Many modern languages have a > tremendous amount of bit-rot in the sense even 2-3 year old programs now > utter fail to run. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- J. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
