Results 1 - 10
of
91
From System F to Typed Assembly Language
- ACM TRANSACTIONS ON PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES AND SYSTEMS
, 1998
"... ..."
Region-Based Memory Management in Cyclone
- IN PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION (PLDI'02)
, 2002
"... Cyclone is a type-safe programming language derived from C. The primary design goal of Cyclone is to let programmers control data representation and memory management without sacrificing type-safety. In this paper, we focus on the region-based memory management of Cyclone and its static typing disci ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 163 (13 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Cyclone is a type-safe programming language derived from C. The primary design goal of Cyclone is to let programmers control data representation and memory management without sacrificing type-safety. In this paper, we focus on the region-based memory management of Cyclone and its static typing discipline. The design incorporates several advancements, including support for region subtyping and a coherent integration with stack allocation and a garbage collector. To support separate compilation, Cyclone requires programmers to write some explicit region annotations, but a combination of default annotations, local type inference, and a novel treatment of region e#ects reduces this burden. As a result, we integrate C idioms in a region-based framework. In our experience, porting legacy C to Cyclone has required altering about 8% of the code; of the changes, only 6% (of the 8%) were region annotations.
Alias Types
- In European Symposium on Programming
, 1999
"... Linear type systems allow destructive operations such as object deallocation and imperative updates of functional data structures. These operations and others, such as the ability to reuse memory at di#erent types, are essential in low-level typed languages. However, traditional linear type syste ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 157 (24 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Linear type systems allow destructive operations such as object deallocation and imperative updates of functional data structures. These operations and others, such as the ability to reuse memory at di#erent types, are essential in low-level typed languages. However, traditional linear type systems are too restrictive for use in low-level code where it is necessary to exploit pointer aliasing. We present a new typed language that allows functions to specify the shape of the store that they expect and to track the flow of pointers through a computation. Our type system is expressive enough to represent pointer aliasing and yet safely permit destructive operations.
TALx86: A Realistic Typed Assembly Language
- In Second Workshop on Compiler Support for System Software
, 1999
"... The goal of typed assembly language (TAL) is to provide a low-level, statically typed target language that is better suited than Java bytecodes for supporting a wide variety of source languages and a number of important optimizations. In previous work, we formalized idealized versions of TAL and pro ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 143 (38 self)
- Add to MetaCart
The goal of typed assembly language (TAL) is to provide a low-level, statically typed target language that is better suited than Java bytecodes for supporting a wide variety of source languages and a number of important optimizations. In previous work, we formalized idealized versions of TAL and proved important safety properties about them. In this paper, we present our progress in defining and implementing a realistic typed assembly language called TALx86. The TALx86 instructions comprise a relatively complete fragment of the Intel IA32 (32-bit 80x86 flat model) assembly language and are thus executable on processors such as the Intel Pentium. The type system for the language incorporates a number of advanced features necessary for safely compiling large programs to good code. To motivate the design of the type system, we demonstrate how various high-level language features are compiled to TALx86. For this purpose, we present a type-safe C-like language called Popcorn. 1 Introductio...
Alias Types for Recursive Data Structures
, 2000
"... Linear type systems permit programmers to deallocate or explicitly recycle memory, but they are severly restricted by the fact that they admit no aliasing. This paper describes a pseudo-linear type system that allows a degree of aliasing and memory reuse as well as the ability to define complex recu ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 128 (14 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Linear type systems permit programmers to deallocate or explicitly recycle memory, but they are severly restricted by the fact that they admit no aliasing. This paper describes a pseudo-linear type system that allows a degree of aliasing and memory reuse as well as the ability to define complex recursive data structures. Our type system can encode conventional linear data structures such as linear lists and trees as well as more sophisticated data structures including cyclic and doubly-linked lists and trees. In the latter cases, our type system is expressive enough to represent pointer aliasing and yet safely permit destructive operations such as object deallocation. We demonstrate the flexibility of our type system by encoding two common compiler optimizations: destination-passing style and Deutsch-Schorr-Waite or "link-reversal" traversal algorithms.
A semantic model of types and machine instructions for proof-carrying code
- In Principles of Programming Languages
"... Proof-carrying code is a framework for proving the safety of machine-language programs with a machinecheckable proof. Such proofs have previously defined type-checking rules as part of the logic. We show a universal type framework for proof-carrying code that will allow a code producer to choose a p ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 122 (16 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Proof-carrying code is a framework for proving the safety of machine-language programs with a machinecheckable proof. Such proofs have previously defined type-checking rules as part of the logic. We show a universal type framework for proof-carrying code that will allow a code producer to choose a programming language, prove the type rules for that language as lemmas in higher-order logic, then use those lemmas to prove the safety of a particular program. We show how to handle traversal, allocation, and initialization of values in a wide variety of types, including functions, records, unions, existentials, and covariant recursive types. 1
A Certifying Compiler for Java
- ACM SIGPLAN Notices
, 2000
"... This paper presents the initial results of a project to determine if the techniques of proof-carrying code and certifying compilers can be applied to programming languages of realistic size and complexity. The experiment shows that: (1) it is possible to implement a certifying native-code compiler f ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 120 (15 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This paper presents the initial results of a project to determine if the techniques of proof-carrying code and certifying compilers can be applied to programming languages of realistic size and complexity. The experiment shows that: (1) it is possible to implement a certifying native-code compiler for a large subset of the Java programming language; (2) the compiler is freely able to apply many standard local and global optimizations; and (3) the PCC binaries it produces are of reasonable size and can be rapidly checked for type safety by a small proof-checker. This paper also presents further evidence that PCC provides several advantages for compiler development. In particular, generating proofs of the target code helps to identify compiler bugs, many of which would have been dicult to discover by testing.
An Indexed Model of Recursive Types for Foundational Proof-Carrying Code
- ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems
, 2000
"... The proofs of "traditional" proof carrying code (PCC) are type-specialized in the sense that they require axioms about a specific type system. In contrast, the proofs of foundational PCC explicitly define all required types and explicitly prove all the required properties of those types assuming onl ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 114 (13 self)
- Add to MetaCart
The proofs of "traditional" proof carrying code (PCC) are type-specialized in the sense that they require axioms about a specific type system. In contrast, the proofs of foundational PCC explicitly define all required types and explicitly prove all the required properties of those types assuming only a fixed foundation of mathematics such as higher-order logic. Foundational PCC is both more flexible and more secure than type-specialized PCC.
Static Analysis of Executables to Detect Malicious Patterns
- In Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Security Symposium
, 2003
"... Malicious code detection is a crucial component of any defense mechanism. In this paper, we present a unique viewpoint on malicious code detection. We regard malicious code detection as an obfuscation-deobfuscation game between malicious code writers and researchers working on malicious code detecti ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 85 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Malicious code detection is a crucial component of any defense mechanism. In this paper, we present a unique viewpoint on malicious code detection. We regard malicious code detection as an obfuscation-deobfuscation game between malicious code writers and researchers working on malicious code detection. Malicious code writers attempt to obfuscate the malicious code to subvert the malicious code detectors, such as anti-virus software. We tested the resilience of three commercial virus scanners against code-obfuscation attacks. The results were surprising: the three commercial virus scanners could be subverted by very simple obfuscation transformations! We present an architecture for detecting malicious patterns in executables that is resilient to common obfuscation transformations. Experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of our prototype tool, SAFE (a static analyzer for executables). 1
A syntactic approach to foundational proof-carrying code
- In Seventeenth IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science
, 2002
"... Proof-Carrying Code (PCC) is a general framework for verifying the safety properties of machine-language programs. PCC proofs are usually written in a logic extended with language-specific typing rules. In Foundational Proof-Carrying Code (FPCC), on the other hand, proofs are constructed and verifie ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 84 (18 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Proof-Carrying Code (PCC) is a general framework for verifying the safety properties of machine-language programs. PCC proofs are usually written in a logic extended with language-specific typing rules. In Foundational Proof-Carrying Code (FPCC), on the other hand, proofs are constructed and verified using strictly the foundations of mathematical logic, with no type-specific axioms. FPCC is more flexible and secure because it is not tied to any particular type system and it has a smaller trusted base. Foundational proofs, however, are much harder to construct. Previous efforts on FPCC all required building sophisticated semantic models for types. In this paper, we present a syntactic approach to FPCC that avoids the difficulties of previous work. Under our new scheme, the foundational proof for a typed machine program simply consists of the typing derivation plus the formalized syntactic soundness proof for the underlying type system. We give a translation from a typed assembly language into FPCC and demonstrate the advantages of our new system via an implementation in the Coq proof assistant. 1.

