mirror-github-bspeice/speice.io
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bspeice/speice.io synced 2024-12-22 08:38:09 -05:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Better.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Bradlee Speice 2019-02-16 20:46:25 -05:00
parent 10e87b330d
commit c47a53d034
1 changed files with 22 additions and 13 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

35
_posts/2019-02-14-insane-allocators.md
View File

@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
--- ---
layout: post layout: post
title: "Insane Allocators: segfaults in safe Rust" title: "Insane Allocators: segfaults in safe Rust"
description: "\"Trusting trust\" with allocators." description: "...and what it means to be \"safe.\""
category: rust, memory category: rust, memory
tags: [] tags: []
--- ---
@ -63,16 +63,23 @@ pub extern "C" fn malloc(size: usize) -> *mut c_void {
// for all subsequent allocations, corrupting the location. // for all subsequent allocations, corrupting the location.
return ALLOC; return ALLOC;
} }
// Note that we don't ever handle `free`; if the first object
// we allocate gets freed, the memory address being given
// to everyone becomes a "use-after-free" bug.
} }
``` ```
Because this implementation of `malloc` is intentionally broken,
every program run using this library will crash. And I mean *every*
program; if you use dynamic memory, you're going down.
So how is it possible to run the Rust compiler in this environment? So how is it possible to run the Rust compiler in this environment?
`LD_PRELOAD` applies to all programs, so running `ls` will also `LD_PRELOAD` applies to all programs, so the compiler should also
lead to memory corruption and crashing! The answer is that `sudo` encounter memory corruption and crash, right? The answer is that `sudo`
deletes environment variables like `LD_PRELOAD` and deletes environment variables like `LD_PRELOAD` and
`LD_LIBRARY_PATH` when running commands; it's possible to `LD_LIBRARY_PATH` when running commands. While it is technically possible
crash `sudo` in the same way by using our evil `malloc` to crash `sudo` in the same way using our evil `malloc` implementation,
implementation. the default policy is to delete these variables because of security concerns.
Finally, why does Rust 1.31 work, and 1.32 fail? The answer is in the Finally, why does Rust 1.31 work, and 1.32 fail? The answer is in the
release notes: release notes:
@ -88,12 +95,12 @@ global allocator. Rust programs prior to 1.28 aren't subject to this
# So what? # So what?
It should be made very clear: the code demonstrated here isn't a I do want to clarify: the code demonstrated here isn't a
security issue. "Safe" Rust programs are only crashing in these security issue, and doesn't call into question Rust's definition of "safe."
circumstances because the memory allocator is intentionally lying to it. The code demonstrated here crashes because the memory allocator is lying to it.
Even in mission critical systems, there are a lot of concerns beyond memory allocation; the Even in mission critical systems, there are a lot of concerns beyond allocators; the
[F-35 Joint Strike Fighter coding standards](http://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf) [F-35 Joint Strike Fighter coding standards](http://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf)
don't even give it a full page. give memory allocation about 10 sentences total.
But this example does highlight an assumption of Rust's memory model But this example does highlight an assumption of Rust's memory model
that I haven't seen discussed much: **safe Rust is safe if, and only if, that I haven't seen discussed much: **safe Rust is safe if, and only if,
@ -101,7 +108,9 @@ the allocator it relies on is "correct"**. And because writing a non-trivial all
[fundamentally unsafe](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/alloc/trait.GlobalAlloc.html#unsafety), [fundamentally unsafe](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/alloc/trait.GlobalAlloc.html#unsafety),
safe Rust will always rely on unsafe Rust somewhere. safe Rust will always rely on unsafe Rust somewhere.
That all said, know that "safe" Rust can only claim to be safe because it stands That all said, know that "safe" Rust can claim to be safe because it stands
on the shoulders of incredible developers working on jemalloc, on the shoulders of incredible developers working on jemalloc,
[kmalloc](https://linux-kernel-labs.github.io/master/labs/kernel_api.html#memory-allocation), [kmalloc](https://linux-kernel-labs.github.io/master/labs/kernel_api.html#memory-allocation),
and others. and others. Without being able to trust the allocators, we wouldn't
be able to trust the promise of safe Rust. So to all the people
who make the safety promises of Rust possible - thanks.