seL4 VS src

> People like to snob Unix but the fact is: the world runs on Unix.

The world you are aware of runs on it.

> Can we really do that much better or is it just hubris?

Yes. Have a look at seL4[1] and Barrelfish too[2], even though that's no longer active. seL4 in particular is powering a lot of highly secure computing systems. There is a surprisingly large sphere outside of Unix/POSIX.

[1] https://sel4.systems/

[2] https://barrelfish.org/

There are also RTOS-capable microkernels such as seL4[0], with few but extremely fast syscalls[1]. Note times are in cycles, not usec.

0. https://sel4.systems/

1. https://sel4.systems/About/Performance/

https://sel4.systems

Working on a number of platforms, verified on some. Multicore support is an ongoing effort afaict.

On OS built on this kernel is still subject to some assumptions (like, hardware working correctly, bootloader doing its job, etc). But mostly those assumptions are less of a problem / easier to prove than the properties of a complex software system.

As I understand it, guarantees that seL4 does provide, go well beyond anything else currently out there.

Take a look at this: https://sel4.systems/

It's probably have to be seL4 (https://sel4.systems), running on some fully OSS hardware.

There are question marks over much of available RISC-V chips due to chinese producers, so maybe OpenPower based hardware?

Plus, the entire system (motherboard, etc) would need to be manufactured using a good supply chain.

Hmmm, this has probably all been thought through in depth before by others. :)

You can use it to (mostly) validate small snippets are the same. See Alive2 for the application of Z3/formalization of programs as SMT for that [1]. As far as I'm aware there are some problems scaling up to arbitrarily sized programs due to a lack of formalization in higher level languages in addition to computational constraints. With a lot of time and effort it can be done though [2].

1. https://github.com/AliveToolkit/alive2

2. https://sel4.systems/

Formal methods. This is not in most general-purpose programming languages and probably never will be (maybe we'll see formal methods to verify unsafe code in Rust...) because it's a ton of boilerplate (you have to help the compiler type-check your code) and also extremely complicated. However, formal methods is very important for proving code secure, such as sel4 (microkernel formally verified to not have bugs or be exploitable) which has just received the ACM Software Systems Award 3 days ago.

Today we'd look at seL4.

The OpenBSD project released 7.4 of their OS on 16 Oct 2023 as their 55th release 💫

Well since https://www.openbsd.org/ still says

> Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!

I'm assuming not, but I could always be mistaken.

> building a cat from scratch

> That would be an interesting project.

Here is the source code of the OpenBSD implementation of cat:

> https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/master/bin/cat/cat.c

and here of the GNU coreutils implementation:

> https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/master/src/cat.c

Thus: I don't think building a cat from scratch or creating a tutorial about that topic is particularly hard (even though the HN audience would likely be interested in it). :-)

> I don't know how they define `MAX`, but I'm guessing it's a typical "a>b?a:b"

Indeed: https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/master/sys/sys/param.h#L...

> Then `SYS_kbind` seems to be a signed int.

It's an untyped #define: https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/master/sys/sys/syscall.h...

I believe your whole analysis is correct, that running an elf file with an openbsd.syscalls entry with .sysno > INT_MAX will allow an out-of-bounds write.

I can reproduce it. And this is the commit that causes the issue: https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/d21788ce70be80e9c4ed0c52c149e01147c4a823

This doesn’t really change your conclusion, but I think that’s the wrong file. This is the real doas afaict: https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/master/usr.bin/doas/doas...

Still just a tidy 1072 lines in that folder though.

I spent 5 minutes staring at your file trying to understand how on earth it does the things in the man page, but of course it doesn’t.

OpenBSD developers are making serious effort to kill off indirect syscalls, the base system is completely clean, take a look at the work Andrew Fresh did to adapt Perl. He write a complete syscall "dispatcher" or emulator for the Perl syscall function so that it calls the libc stubs.

https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/312e26c80be876012ae979...

The ports tree is also being cleansed of syscall(2) usage, until they're all gone.

msyscall, pinsyscall, recent mandatory IBT/BTI, xonly. OpenBSD is making waves, but people aren't really seeing them yet.

Actually, I got it wrong, too many vulnerabilities in flight. They did fix it: https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/375ccafb2eb77de6cf240e...