Researchers aim to build secure compilation chains enforcing that if there is no attack a source context can mount against a source program then there is also no attack an adversarial target context can mount against the compiled program. Proving that these compilation chains are secure is, however, challenging, and involves a non-trivial back-translation step: for any attack a target context mounts against the compiled program one has to exhibit a source context mounting the same attack against the source program. We describe a novel back-translation technique, which results in simpler proofs that can be more easily mechanized in a proof assistant. Given a finite set of finite trace prefixes, capturing the interaction recorded during an attack between a target context and the compiled program, we build a call-return tree that we back-translate into a source context producing the same trace prefixes. We use state in the generated source context to record the current location in the call-return tree. The back-translation is done in several small steps, each adding to the tree new information describing how the location should change depending on how the context regains control. To prove this back-translation correct we give semantics to every intermediate call-return tree language, using ghost state to store information and explicitly enforce execution invariants. We prove several small forward simulations, basically seeing the back-translation as a verified nanopass compiler. Thanks to this modular structure, we are able to mechanize this complex back-translation and its correctness proof in the Rocq prover without too much effort.

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.

Proving secure compilation of partial programs typically requires back-translating an attack against the compiled program to an attack against the source program. To prove back-translation, one can syntactically translate the target attacker to a source one-i.e., syntax-directed back-translation-or show that the interaction traces of the target attacker can also be emitted by source attackers—i.e., trace-directed back-translation. Syntax-directed back-translation is not suitable when the target attacker may use unstructured control flow that the source language cannot directly represent. Trace-directed back-translation works with such syntactic dissimilarity because only the external interactions of the target attacker have to be mimicked in the source, not its internal control flow. Revealing only external interactions is, however, inconvenient when sharing memory via unforgeable pointers, since information about shared pointers stashed in private memory is not present on the trace. This made prior proofs unnecessarily complex, since the generated attacker had to instead stash all reachable pointers. In this work, we introduce more informative data-flow traces, combining the best of syntax- and trace-directed back-translation in a simpler technique that handles both syntactic dissimilarity and memory sharing well, and that is proved correct in Coq. Additionally, we develop a novel turn-taking simulation relation and use it to prove a recomposition lemma, which is key to reusing compiler correctness in such secure compilation proofs. We are the first to mechanize such a recomposition lemma in the presence of memory sharing. We use these two innovations in a secure compilation proof for a code generation compiler pass between a source language with structured control flow and a target language with unstructured control flow, both with safe pointers and components.

Compiler correctness, in its simplest form, is defined as the inclusion of the set of traces of the compiled program in the set of traces of the original program. This is equivalent to the preservation of all trace properties. Here, traces collect, for instance, the externally observable events of each execution. However, this definition requires the set of traces of the source and target languages to be the same, which is not the case when the languages are far apart or when observations are fine-grained. To overcome this issue, we study a generalized compiler correctness definition, which uses source and target traces drawn from potentially different sets and connected by an arbitrary relation. We set out to understand what guarantees this generalized compiler correctness definition gives us when instantiated with a non-trivial relation on traces. When this trace relation is not equality, it is no longer possible to preserve the trace properties of the source program unchanged. Instead, we provide a generic characterization of the target trace property ensured by correctly compiling a program that satisfies a given source property, and dually, of the source trace property one is required to show to obtain a certain target property for the compiled code. We show that this view on compiler correctness can naturally account for undefined behavior, resource exhaustion, different source and target values, side channels, and various abstraction mismatches. Finally, we show that the same generalization also applies to many definitions of secure compilation, which characterize the protection of a compiled program linked against adversarial code.

Abstract Compiler correctness is, in its simplest form, defined as the inclusion of the set of traces of the compiled program into the set of traces of the original program, which is equivalent to the preservation of all trace properties. Here traces collect, for instance, the externally observable events of each execution. This definition requires, however, the set of traces of the source and target languages to be exactly the same, which is not the case when the languages are far apart or when observations are fine-grained. To overcome this issue, we study a generalized compiler correctness definition, which uses source and target traces drawn from potentially different sets and connected by an arbitrary relation. We set out to understand what guarantees this generalized compiler correctness definition gives us when instantiated with a non-trivial relation on traces. When this trace relation is not equality, it is no longer possible to preserve the trace properties of the source program unchanged. Instead, we provide a generic characterization of the target trace property ensured by correctly compiling a program that satisfies a given source property, and dually, of the source trace property one is required to show in order to obtain a certain target property for the compiled code. We show that this view on compiler correctness can naturally account for undefined behavior, resource exhaustion, different source and target values, side-channels, and various abstraction mismatches. Finally, we show that the same generalization also applies to many secure compilation definitions, which characterize the protection of a compiled program against linked adversarial code.

Good programming languages provide helpful abstractions for writing secure code, but the security properties of the source language are generally not preserved when compiling a program and linking it with adversarial code in a low-level target language (e.g., a library or a legacy application). Linked target code that is compromised or malicious may, for instance, read and write the compiled program's data and code, jump to arbitrary memory locations, or smash the stack, blatantly violating any source-level abstraction. By contrast, a fully abstract compilation chain protects source-level abstractions all the way down, ensuring that linked adversarial target code cannot observe more about the compiled program than what some linked source code could about the source program. However, while research in this area has so far focused on preserving observational equivalence, as needed for achieving full abstraction, there is a much larger space of security properties one can choose to preserve against linked adversarial code. And the precise class of security properties one chooses crucially impacts not only the supported security goals and the strength of the attacker model, but also the kind of protections a secure compilation chain has to introduce. We are the first to thoroughly explore a large space of formal secure compilation criteria based on robust property preservation, i.e., the preservation of properties satisfied against arbitrary adversarial contexts. We study robustly preserving various classes of trace properties such as safety, of hyperproperties such as noninterference, and of relational hyperproperties such as trace equivalence. This leads to many new secure compilation criteria, some of which are easier to practically achieve and prove than full abstraction, and some of which provide strictly stronger security guarantees. For each of the studied criteria we propose an equivalent “property-free” characterization that clarifies which proof techniques apply. For relational properties and hyperproperties, which relate the behaviors of multiple programs, our formal definitions of the property classes themselves are novel. We order our criteria by their relative strength and show several collapses and separation results. Finally, we adapt existing proof techniques to show that even the strongest of our secure compilation criteria, the robust preservation of all relational hyperproperties, is achievable for a simple translation from a statically typed to a dynamically typed language.