Hardening mode for the compiler
discourse.llvm.org
discourse.llvm.org
> ... strong belief that bounds checks couldn’t realistically be made cheap enough to enable by default. However, so far they are looking very affordable. From the above post, 0.3% for bounds checks in all the standard library types!
There's more to the hardening story than just bounds checks. But it's a big part IMO.
[1] https://chandlerc.blog/posts/2024/11/story-time-bounds-check...
First in compiler vendors frameworks, pre C++98, afterwards with build settings.
It is quite telling from existing community culture, that some folks only read their compiler manuals when government knocks on the door.
What do you want to say?
Is this bad? I think this is desired. Only in c or c++ world people act like understanding how compiler internals work (often poorly) is desired
One does not need to understand compiler internals to be aware what build flags are used to turn bounds checking on the standard library.
I think this says more about other parts of the developer ecosystem than about C and C++. Understanding how the compilers work (and how CPUs work) is fundamental to software development.
Well, you can get very, very far without understanding compiler passes and how CPUs work
In MSVC or Clang, when compiled against the Microsoft C++ STL, they already are. So,
auto x = std::vector{1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
std::println("{}", x[5]);
In fact on Windows, even the C runtime has debug checks. That's why there are four options to choose from when linking against the modern UCRT:
/MT (static linking, no debug)
/MTd (static linking, with debug)
/MD (dynamic linking, no debug)
/MDd (dynamic linking, with debug)
It mostly impacts templated code, so it's a compiler flag, not a linker flag. Many distributions have been using this flag to build C++ code for quite some time.
(And this concerns GNU libstdc++, not glibc, so different licensing rules apply.)
Also, I mentioned no libc equivalent, and that remains true. Regardless of the libc distribution (glibc, musl, BSD, macOS libSystem), none of them have a debug mode in the vein that Windows UCRT does.
Search for homoglyph attacks and the unicode security guidelines for identifiers
if(environmentǃ=ENV_PROD){
// bypass authZ checks in DEV
return true;
}
I'll note that GCC gives a clear warning here ("suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value"), so as always, turn on -Werror and take warnings seriously!
int environmentǃ;
int main()
{
if(environmentǃ=0){
// bypass authZ checks in DEV
return 0;
}
return 1;
}
$ gcc -Wall test.c
test.c: In function ‘main’:
test.c:4:6: warning: suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value [-Wparentheses]
4 | if(environmentǃ=0){
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
Good luck. I feel that the C++ community values backward compatibility way too much for this to succeed. Most package maintainers are not going to like it a bit.
The biggest problem is ABI, in theory that isn't something that standard cares about, in practice all compiler vendors do, thus proposals that break ABI from existing binary libraries tend to be an issue.
Another issue is that WG21 nowadays is full of people without compiler experience, willing to push through their proposals, even without implementations, which then compiler vendors are supposed to suck it up and implement them somehow.
After around C++14 time, it became cool to join WG21 and now the process is completely broken, there are more than 200 members.
There is no guidance on an overall vision per se, everyone gets to submit their pet proposal, and then needs to champion it.
Most of these folks aren't that keen into security, hence the kind of baby steps that have been happening.
Even the C ABI many talk about, most of them don't have any idea of what they are actually talking about.
First of all, it is the OS ABI, in operating systems that happened to be written in C.
Secondly, even C binary libraries have plenty of breakage opportunities within the same std, and compiler.
ABI stability even in languages that kind of promise it, is in reality an half promise.
Bytecode, or some part of the language is guaranteed to be stable, while being tied to a specific version, not all build flags fall under the promise, and not much is promised over the standard library.
Even other good examples that go to great efforts like Java, .NET or Swift, aren't fully ABI safe.
It may be per-OS (I wouldn't try linking Linux and NT object files even if they were both compiled from C by GCC with matching versions and everything), but enough details come from C that I think it's fair to call it a C ABI. Like, I can write unix software in pascal, but in order to write to stdout that code is gonna have to convert pascal strings into C strings. OTOH, pascal binaries using pascal libraries can use pascal semantics even on an OS that uses C ABIs.
Try to link two binary libraries in Linux, both compiled with GCC, while not using exactly the same compiler flags, or the same data padding, for example things like structures.
Since committee people can explain it even better,
"To Save C, We Must Save ABI"
https://thephd.dev/to-save-c-we-must-save-abi-fixing-c-funct...
I would like to learn more about that. Do you mean this:
The problem is that in C++ these atomics are library types, but in C they are built-in types which should have a clearly specified ABI. But the goal was to make them compatibility with C++ library types, which is a rather stupid idea, which pulls in even more problems.
Exactly because one gets issues with multiple compilers is yet another prof why there isn't such thing as official C ABI.
And while, yes, there are times where ABIs are broken, compiler versions affecting things would add a whole another uncontrollable axis on top of that. I would quite like to avoid a world of "this library can only be used by code compiled with clang-25" as much as possible.
But you can make it worse by changing "You must have version X of library Y installed" to "You must have version X of library Y compiled by compiler Z installed".
As-is, one can reasonably achieve ABI stability for their C library if they want to; really all it takes is "don't modify exposed types or signatures of exposed functions" and "don't use intmax_t", and currently you can actually break the latter.
There is a reason why commercial software has several combinations on their SDKs, for their libraries.
Release, debug, multi-threaded, with math emulation, with fast math, specific CPU ISA with and without SIMD, and these are only the most common ones.
Multi-threading doesn't affect ABI in any way at all.
fast-math doesn't affect ABI (maybe you mean the setting of FTZ/DAZ? but modern clang & gcc don't do that either, and anyway that breaks everything float in general, ABI itself is one of the few float things that don't immediately break, really).
Presence or absence of SIMD extensions, hard-float, or indeed any other form of extension, also doesn't modify the ABI by itself.
There's a separate -mabi=... that controls hard-float & co, but generally people don't touch that, and those that do, well, have a clear indication of "abi" in "-mabi" that tells them that they're touching something about ABI. (SIMD does have some asterisks on passing around SIMD types, but gcc does give a -Wpsabi warning when using a natively-unsupported SIMD type in a function signature; and this affects only very specialized low-level libraries, and said functions should be marked via an attribute to assume the presence of the necessary intended extension anyway, and probably are header-only and thus unaffected in the first place)
That said, it would probably make sense to have a way to configure -mabi at the function level (if this doesn't already exist).
General CPU ISA is one thing that does inescapably affect ABI of compiled programs; but you can have a stable ABI within one ISA. But yes, there's the wider requirement of "You must have version X of library Y for ISA W installed", but yet "You must have version X of library Y for ISA W compiled by compiler Z installed" is still worse.
C89 was long time ago.
We are not talking about what gcc, clang do in their specific implementations, we are talking about C.
All those examples with compiler flags are exactly workarounds around the one true ABI that C doesn't actually have.
Still have no clue what you mean by threading; sure, threads exist, even officially so in C11, but still just in completely no way whatsoever affect ABI any more than any other part of the standard library, i.e. "as stable as the stdlib impl is".
If bounds checks are going to be added, cool, -fstl-bounds-check. Or -fhardened like GCC. But not by default.
Working existing code is working existing code, I don't care if it looks "suspicious" to some random guy's random compiler feature.
but I totally disagree with your second point. running code often has real problems with race conditions, error handling, unwanted memory reuse, out of bounds pointers, etc. if a new version of the compiler can prove these things for me - that's invaluable.
If many of those features are being added and the flags might add up to become a pain, then even a group flag -f-new-safety-features or whatever.