It is common for programmers to assemble their programs from a combination of trusted and untrusted components. In this context, a trusted program component is said to be robustly safe if it behaves safely when linked against arbitrary untrusted code. Prior work has shown how various encapsulation mechanisms (in both high- and low-level languages) can be used to protect code so that it is robustly safe, but none of the existing work has explored how robust safety can be achieved in a patently unsafe language like C. In this paper, we show how to bring robust safety to a simple yet representative C-like language we call Rec . Although Rec (like C) is inherently “dangerous” and thus not robustly safe, we can “save” Rec programs via compilation to Cap , a CHERI-like capability machine . To formalize the benefits of such a hardening compiler , we develop Reckon, a separation logic for verifying robust safety of Rec programs. Reckon is not sound under Rec ’s unsafe, C-like semantics, but it is sound when Rec programs are hardened via compilation and linked against untrusted code running on Cap . As a crucial step in proving soundness of Reckon, we introduce a novel technique of semantic back-translation , which we formalize by building on the DimSum framework for multi-language semantics. All our results are mechanized in the Rocq prover.

As separation logic is a logic of resources, the way in which resources can soundly change and be updated is a fundamental aspect. Such changes have typically been restricted to certain local or frame-preserving updates. However, recently we have seen separation logics where the restriction to frame-preserving updates seems to be a hindrance towards achieving the ideal program reasoning rules. In this, paper we propose a novel nextgen modality that enables reasoning across generations where each generational change can update resources in ways that are non-local and non-frame-preserving. We implement the idea as an extension to the Iris base logic, which enriches Iris with an entirely new capability: the ability to make non-frame-preserving updates to ghost state. We show that two existing Iris modalities are special cases of the nextgen modality. Our “extension” can thus also be seen as a generalization and simplification of the Iris base logic. To demonstrate the utility of the nextgen modality we use it to construct a separation logic for a programming language with explicit stack allocation and with a return operation that clears entire stack frames. The nextgen modality is used to great effect in the reasoning rule for return, where a modular and practical reasoning rule is otherwise out of reach. This is the first separation logic for a high-level programming language with stack allocation. We sketch ideas for future work in other domains where we think the nextgen modality can be useful.

We present DRFCaml, an extension of OCaml’s type system that guarantees data race freedom for multithreaded OCaml programs while retaining backward compatibility with existing sequential OCaml code. We build on recent work of Lorenzen et al., who extend OCaml with modes that keep track of locality, uniqueness, and affinity. We introduce two new mode axes, contention and portability , which record whether data has been shared or can be shared between multiple threads. Although this basic type-and-mode system has limited expressive power by itself, it does let us express APIs for capsules , regions of memory whose access is controlled by a unique ghost key, and reader-writer locks , which allow a thread to safely acquire partial or full ownership of a key. We show that this allows complex data structures (which may involve aliasing and mutable state) to be safely shared between threads. We formalize the complete system and establish its soundness by building a semantic model of it in the Iris program logic on top of the Rocq proof assistant.

Undefined behavior in C often causes devastating security vulnerabilities. One practical mitigation is compartmentalization, which allows developers to structure large programs into mutually distrustful compartments with clearly specified privileges and interactions. In this paper we introduce SECOMP, a compiler for compartmentalized C code that comes with machine-checked proofs guaranteeing that the scope of undefined behavior is restricted to the compartments that encounter it and become dynamically compromised. These guarantees are formalized as the preservation of safety properties against adversarial contexts, a secure compilation criterion similar to full abstraction, and this is the first time such a strong criterion is proven for a mainstream programming language. To achieve this we extend the languages of the CompCert verified C compiler with isolated compartments that can only interact via procedure calls and returns, as specified by cross-compartment interfaces. We adapt the passes and optimizations of CompCert as well as their correctness proofs to this compartment-aware setting. We then use compiler correctness as an ingredient in a larger secure compilation proof that involves several proof engineering novelties, needed to scale formally secure compilation up to a C compiler.

A capability machine is a type of CPU allowing fine-grained privilege separation using capabilities , machine words that represent certain kinds of authority. We present a mathematical model and accompanying proof methods that can be used for formal verification of functional correctness of programs running on a capability machine, even when they invoke and are invoked by unknown (and possibly malicious) code. We use a program logic called Cerise for reasoning about known code, and an associated logical relation, for reasoning about unknown code. The logical relation formally captures the capability safety guarantees provided by the capability machine. The Cerise program logic, logical relation, and all the examples considered in the paper have been mechanized using the Iris program logic framework in the Coq proof assistant. The methodology we present underlies recent work of the authors on formal reasoning about capability machines [Georges et al. 2021 ; Skorstengaard et al. 2019a ; Van Strydonck et al. 2022 ], but was left somewhat implicit in those publications. In this paper we present a pedagogical introduction to the methodology, in a simpler setting (no exotic capabilities), and starting from minimal examples. We work our way up to new results about a heap-based calling convention and implementations of sophisticated object-capability patterns of the kind previously studied for high-level languages with object-capabilities, demonstrating that the methodology scales to such reasoning.

WebAssembly offers coarse-grained encapsulation guarantees via its module system, but does not support fine-grained sharing of its linear memory. MSWasm is a recent proposal which extends WebAssembly with fine-grained memory sharing via handles, a type of capability that guarantees spatial and temporal safety, and thus enables an expressive yet safe style of programming with flexible sharing. In this paper, we formally validate the pen-and-paper design of MSWasm. To do so, we first define MSWasmCert, a mechanisation of MSWasm that makes it a fully-defined, conservative extension of WebAssembly 1.0, including the module system. We then develop Iris-MSWasm, a foundational reasoning framework for MSWasm composed of a separation logic to reason about known code, and a logical relation to reason about unknown, potentially adversarial code. Iris-MSWasm thereby makes explicit a key aspect of the implicit universal contract of MSWasm: robust capability safety. We apply Iris-MSWasm to reason about key use cases of handles, in which the effect of calling an unknown function is bounded by robust capability safety. Iris-MSWasm thus works as a framework to prove complex security properties of MSWasm programs, and provides a foundation to evaluate the language-level guarantees of MSWasm.

WebAssembly makes it possible to run C/C++ applications on the web with near-native performance. A WebAssembly program is expressed as a collection of higher-order ML-like modules, which are composed together through a system of explicit imports and exports using a host language, enabling a form of higher- order modular programming. We present Iris-Wasm, a mechanized higher-order separation logic building on a specification of Wasm 1.0 mechanized in Coq and the Iris framework. Using Iris-Wasm, we are able to specify and verify individual modules separately, and then compose them modularly in a simple host language featuring the core operations of the WebAssembly JavaScript Interface. Building on Iris-Wasm, we develop a logical relation that enforces robust safety: unknown, adversarial code can only affect other modules through the functions that they explicitly export. Together, the program logic and the logical relation allow us to formally verify functional correctness of WebAssembly programs, even when they invoke and are invoked by unknown code, thereby demonstrating that WebAssembly enforces strong isolation between modules.

Assembly-level protection mechanisms (virtual mem-ory, trusted execution environments, virtualization) make it possible to guarantee security properties of a full system in the presence of arbitrary attacker provided code. However, they typically only support a single trust boundary: code is either trusted or untrusted, and protection cannot be nested. Capability machines provide protection mechanisms that are more fine-grained and that do support arbitrary nesting of protection. We show in this paper how this enables the formal verification of full-system security properties under multiple attacker models: differ-ent security objectives of the full system can be verified under a different choice of trust boundary (i.e. under a different attacker model). The verification approach we propose is modular, and is robust: code outside the trust boundary for a given security objective can be arbitrary, unverified attacker-provided code. It is based on the use of universal contracts for untrusted adversarial code: sound, conservative contracts which can be combined with manual verification of trusted components in a compositional program logic. Compositionality of the program logic also allows us to reuse common parts in the analyses for different attacker models. We instantiate the approach concretely by extending an existing capability machine model with support for memory-mapped 1/0 and we obtain full system, machine-verified security properties about external effect traces while limiting the manual verification effort to a small trusted computing base relevant for the specific property under study.

Capability machines are a type of CPUs that support fine-grained privilege separation using capabilities , machine words that include forms of authority. Formal models of capability machines and associated calling conventions have so far focused on establishing two forms of stack safety properties, namely local state encapsulation and well-bracketed control flow. We introduce a novel kind of directed capabilities and show how to use them to make an earlier suggested calling convention more efficient. In contrast to earlier work on capability machine models we do not only consider integrity properties but also confidentiality properties; we provide a unary logical relation to reason about the former and a binary logical relation to reason about the latter, each expressive enough to reason about temporal stack safety. While the logical relations are useful for reasoning about concrete examples, they do not on their own demonstrate that stack safety holds for a large class of programs. Therefore, we also show full abstraction of a compiler from an overlay semantics that internalizes the calling convention as a single call step and explicitly keeps track of the call stack and frame lifetimes to a base capability machine. All results have been mechanized in Coq.

Capability machines are a special form of CPUs that offer fine-grained privilege separation using a form of authority-carrying values known as capabilities. The CHERI capability machine offers local capabilities, which could be used as a cheap but restricted form of capability revocation. Unfortunately, local capability revocation is unrealistic in practice because large amounts of stack memory need to be cleared as a security precaution. In this paper, we address this shortcoming by introducing uninitialized capabilities : a new form of capabilities that represent read/write authority to a block of memory without exposing the memory’s initial contents. We provide a mechanically verified program logic for reasoning about programs on a capability machine with the new feature and we formalize and prove capability safety in the form of a universal contract for untrusted code. We use uninitialized capabilities for making a previously-proposed secure calling convention efficient and prove its security using the program logic. Finally, we report on a proof-of-concept implementation of uninitialized capabilities on the CHERI capability machine.