pith. sign in

arxiv: 1705.07354 · v3 · pith:IRSWZVTFnew · submitted 2017-05-20 · 💻 cs.PL · cs.CR

The Meaning of Memory Safety

classification 💻 cs.PL cs.CR
keywords memorysafetypartsprogramstatebecausecharacterizationlanguage
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

We give a rigorous characterization of what it means for a programming language to be memory safe, capturing the intuition that memory safety supports local reasoning about state. We formalize this principle in two ways. First, we show how a small memory-safe language validates a noninterference property: a program can neither affect nor be affected by unreachable parts of the state. Second, we extend separation logic, a proof system for heap-manipulating programs, with a memory-safe variant of its frame rule. The new rule is stronger because it applies even when parts of the program are buggy or malicious, but also weaker because it demands a stricter form of separation between parts of the program state. We also consider a number of pragmatically motivated variations on memory safety and the reasoning principles they support. As an application of our characterization, we evaluate the security of a previously proposed dynamic monitor for memory safety of heap-allocated data.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.