l4v
llvm-project
l4v | llvm-project | |
---|---|---|
15 | 354 | |
490 | 26,063 | |
1.0% | 3.5% | |
9.6 | 10.0 | |
16 days ago | about 6 hours ago | |
Isabelle | C++ | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
l4v
-
Rewrite the VP9 codec library in Rust
> C/C++ can be made memory safe
.. but it's much harder to prove your work is memory safe. sel4 is memory safe C, for example. The safety is achieved by a large external theorem prover and a synced copy written in Haskell. https://github.com/seL4/l4v
Typechecks are form of proof. It's easier to write provably safe Rust than provably safe C because the proofs and checker are integrated.
-
CVE-2023-4863: Heap buffer overflow in WebP (Chrome)
You can't really retrofit safety to C. The best that can be achieved is sel4, which while it is written in C has a separate proof of its correctness: https://github.com/seL4/l4v
The proof is much, much more work than the microkernel itself. A proof for something as large as webP might take decades.
- SeL4 Specification and Proofs
-
What in the name of all that's holy is going on with software ?
When something like the seL4 microkernel is formally verified, the remaining bugs should only be bugs in the specification, not the implementation.
-
Elimination of programmers
seL4 specifications and proofs are not a programming language.
-
Google Announces KataOS and Sparrow
Yes, especially 'logically impossible' when you dig into the details. From the blogpost:
> and the kernel modifications to seL4 that can reclaim the memory used by the rootserver.
MMMMMMMMMMMkkkkkk. So you then have to ask: were these changes also formally verified? There's a metric ton of kernel changes here: https://github.com/AmbiML/sparrow-kernel/commits/sparrow but I don't see a fork of https://github.com/seL4/l4v anywhere inside AmbiML.
I mean, it does also claim to be "almost entirely written in Rust", which is true if you ignore almost the entire OS part of the OS (the kernel and the minimal seL4 runtime).
-
A 24-year-old bug in the Linux Kernel (2021)
Probably the only way to prevent this type of issue in an automated fashion is to change your perspective from proving that a bug exists, to proving that it doesn't exist. That is, you define some properties that your program must satisfy to be considered correct. Then, when you make optimizations such as bulk receiver fast-path, you must prove (to the static analysis tool) that your optimizations to not break any of the required properties. You also need to properly specify the required properties in a way that they are actually useful for what people want the code to do.
All of this is incredibly difficult, and an open area of research. Probably the biggest example of this approach is the Sel4 microkernel. To put the difficulty in perspective, I checkout out some of the sel4 repositories did a quick line count.
The repository for the microkernel itself [0] has 276,541
The testsuite [1] has 26,397
The formal verification repo [2] has 1,583,410, over 5 times as much as the source code.
That is not to say that formal verification takes 5x the work. You also have to write your source-code in such a way that it is ammenable to being formally verified, which makes it more difficult to write, and limits what you can reasonably do.
Having said that, this approach can be done in a less severe way. For instance, type systems are essentially a simple form of formal verification. There are entire classes of bugs that are simply impossible in a properly typed programs; and more advanced type systems can eliminate a larger class of bugs. Although, to get the full benefit, you still need to go out of your way to encode some invariant into the type system. You also find that mainstream languages that try to go in this direction always contain some sort of escape hatch to let the programmer assert a portion of code is correct without needing to convince the verifier.
[0] https://github.com/seL4/seL4
[1] https://github.com/seL4/sel4test
[2] https://github.com/seL4/l4v
-
Formally Proven Binary Format Parsers
I mean, just look at the commits with "fix" in the specs folder: https://github.com/seL4/l4v/commits/master?after=4f0bbd4fcbc...
- Proofs and specifications
llvm-project
-
Qt and C++ Trivial Relocation (Part 1)
As far as I know, libstdc++'s representation has two advantages:
First, it simplifies the implementation of `s.data()`, because you hold a pointer that invariably points to the first character of the data. The pointer-less version needs to do a branch there. Compare libstdc++ [1] to libc++ [2].
[1]: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/065dddc/libstdc++-v3/...
[2]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1a96179/libcxx/inc...
Basically libstdc++ is paying an extra 8 bytes of storage, and losing trivial relocatability, in exchange for one fewer branch every time you access the string's characters. I imagine that the performance impact of that extra branch is tiny, and massively confounded in practice by unrelated factors that are clearly on libc++'s side (e.g. libc++'s SSO buffer is 7 bytes bigger, despite libc++'s string object itself being smaller). But it's there.
The second advantage is that libstdc++ already did it that way, and to change it would be an ABI break; so now they're stuck with it. I mean, obviously that's not an "advantage" in the intuitive sense; but it's functionally equivalent to an advantage, in that it's a very strong technical answer to the question "Why doesn't libstdc++ just switch to doing it libc++'s way?"
-
Playing with DragonRuby Game Toolkit (DRGTK)
This Ruby implementation is based on mruby and LLVM and it’s commercial software but cheap.
- Add support for Qualcomm Oryon processor
-
Ask HN: Which books/resources to understand modern Assembler?
'Computer Architeture: A Quantitative Apporach" and/or more specific design types (mips, arm, etc) can be found under the Morgan Kaufmann Series in Computer Architeture and Design.
"Getting Started with LLVM Core Libraries: Get to Grips With Llvm Essentials and Use the Core Libraries to Build Advanced Tools "
"The Architecture of Open Source Applications (Volume 1) : LLVM" https://aosabook.org/en/v1/llvm.html
"Tourist Guide to LLVM source code" : https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1453
llvm home page : https://llvm.org/
llvm tutorial : https://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/
llvm reference : https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html
learn by examples : C source code to 'llvm' bitcode : https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9148890/how-to-make-clan...
-
Flang-new: How to force arrays to be allocated on the heap?
See
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/88344
https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/flang-new-how-to-forc...
- The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
-
Programming from Top to Bottom - Parsing
You can never mistake type_declaration with an identifier, otherwise the program will not work. Aside from that constraint, you are free to name them whatever you like, there is no one standard, and each parser has it own naming conventions, unless you are planning to use something like LLVM. If you are interested, you can see examples of naming in different language parsers in the AST Explorer.
-
Look ma, I wrote a new JIT compiler for PostgreSQL
> There is one way to make the LLVM JIT compiler more usable, but I fear it’s going to take years to be implemented: being able to cache and reuse compiled queries.
Actually, it's implemented in LLVM for years :) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a98546ebcd2a692e...
-
C++ Safety, in Context
> It's true, this was a CVE in Rust and not a CVE in C++, but only because C++ doesn't regard the issue as a problem at all. The problem definitely exists in C++, but it's not acknowledged as a problem, let alone fixed.
Can you find a link that substantiates your claim? You're throwing out some heavy accusations here that don't seem to match reality at all.
Case in point, this was fixed in both major C++ libraries:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ebf6175464768983a2d...
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4f67a909902d8ab9...
So what C++ community refused to regard this as an issue and refused to fix it? Where is your supporting evidence for your claims?
-
Clang accepts MSVC arguments and targets Windows if its binary is named clang-cl
For everyone else looking for the magic in this almost 7k lines monster, look at line 6610 [1].
[1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/8ec28af8eaff5acd0d...
What are some alternatives?
seL4 - The seL4 microkernel
zig - General-purpose programming language and toolchain for maintaining robust, optimal, and reusable software.
hubris - A lightweight, memory-protected, message-passing kernel for deeply embedded systems.
Lark - Lark is a parsing toolkit for Python, built with a focus on ergonomics, performance and modularity.
agda-stdlib - The Agda standard library
gcc
creusot - Creusot helps you prove your code is correct in an automated fashion. [Moved to: https://github.com/creusot-rs/creusot]
SDL - Simple Directmedia Layer
cryptography - cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives and recipes to Python developers.
cosmopolitan - build-once run-anywhere c library
codeball-action - 🔮 Codeball – AI Code Review that finds bugs and fast-tracks your code
windmill - Open-source developer platform to turn scripts into workflows and UIs. Fastest workflow engine (5x vs Airflow). Open-source alternative to Airplane and Retool.