Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2102.07485 v1 pith:KBBK6SM3 submitted 2021-02-15 cs.PL

Interface Compliance of Inline Assembly: Automatically Check, Patch and Refine

classification cs.PL
keywords assemblyinlinecomplianceinterfaceissuescodespackagespatches
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Inline assembly is still a common practice in low-level C programming, typically for efficiency reasons or for accessing specific hardware resources. Such embedded assembly codes in the GNU syntax (supported by major compilers such as GCC, Clang and ICC) have an interface specifying how the assembly codes interact with the C environment. For simplicity reasons, the compiler treats GNU inline assembly codes as blackboxes and relies only on their interface to correctly glue them into the compiled C code. Therefore, the adequacy between the assembly chunk and its interface (named compliance) is of primary importance, as such compliance issues can lead to subtle and hard-to-find bugs. We propose RUSTInA, the first automated technique for formally checking inline assembly compliance, with the extra ability to propose (proven) patches and (optimization) refinements in certain cases. RUSTInA is based on an original formalization of the inline assembly compliance problem together with novel dedicated algorithms. Our prototype has been evaluated on 202 Debian packages with inline assembly (2656 chunks), finding 2183 issues in 85 packages -- 986 significant issues in 54 packages (including major projects such as ffmpeg or ALSA), and proposing patches for 92% of them. Currently, 38 patches have already been accepted (solving 156 significant issues), with positive feedback from development teams.

discussion (0)

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