lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Virtual Machines, JVM in kernel
    Date
    From
    In message <y7rvhn4zytr.fsf@sytry.doc.ic.ac.uk>, David Wragg writes:
    +-----
    | "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <allbery@kf8nh.apk.net> writes:
    | > Checking whether the proof is consistent wouldn't be, but how do you verify
    | > the proof "goes with" the code? Including a digital signature prevents
    | > spoofing, but doesn't promise that the code actually works as the proof
    | > claims.
    |
    | These wouldn't be general proofs of just anything - they would
    | naturally refer to the subject of the proof (i.e. the code), so that
    | altering the code automatically invalidates the proof.
    +--->8

    That's the "spoofing" scenario, which as I implied above isn't
    "interesting". The point where it falls apart is that a "proof" that some
    piece of C code doesn't have any buffer overflows *cannot* be verified.

    Type validation is useful, but only when the types themselves prevent
    invalid accesses. C types don't insure that you can't write past the limits
    of the typed address range (scalar variable, structure, array, etc.), so it
    doesn't accomplish anything useful in practice.

    --
    brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net
    system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu
    electrical and computer engineering KF8NH
    carnegie mellon university



    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.019 / U:31.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site