A Scalable Architecture for Proof-Carrying Code

  • George C. Necula
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2024)

Abstract

Proof-Carrying Code (PCC) is a general mechanism for verifying that a code fragment can be executed safely on a host system. The key technical detail that makes PCC simple yet very powerful is that the code fragment is required to be accompanied by a detailed and precise explanation of how it satisfies the safety policy. This leaves the code receiver with the simple task of verifying that the explanation is correct and that it matches the code in question.

Previous implementations of PCC used safety explanations in the form of explicit formal proofs of code safety, thus gaining leverage from a substantial amount of previous research in the area of proof representation and checking, but at the expense of poor scalability due to large proof sizes. In this paper we describe a series of changes that are necessary to achieve a truly scalable architecture for PCC. These include a new proof representation form along with a better integration of the various components of a PCC checker. We also present experimental results that show this architecture to be effective for checking the type safety of even very large programs expressed as machine code.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [CLN+00]
    Christopher Colby, Peter Lee, George C. Necula, Fred Blau, Mark Plesko, and Kenneth Cline. A certifying compiler for Java. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 35(5):95–107, May 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [DeB72]
    N. DeBruijn. Lambda-calculus notation with nameless dummies, a tool for automatic formula manipulation. Indag. Mat., 34:381–392, 1972.Google Scholar
  3. [HHP93]
    Robert Harper, Furio Honsell, and Gordon Plotkin. A framework for defining logics. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 40(1):143–184, January 1993.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [MWCG99]
    Greg Morrisett, David Walker, Karl Crary, and Neal Glew. From system F to typed assembly language. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 21(3):527–568, May 1999.Google Scholar
  5. [Nec97]
    George C. Necula. Proof-carrying code. In The 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 106–119. ACM, January 1997.Google Scholar
  6. [Nec98]
    George C. Necula. Compiling with Proofs. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, September 1998. Also available as CMU-CS-98-154.Google Scholar
  7. [NL96]
    George C. Necula and Peter Lee. Safe kernel extensions without runtime checking. In Second Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementations, pages 229–243. Usenix, October 1996.Google Scholar
  8. [NL98]
    George C. Necula and Peter Lee. Efficient representation and validation of proofs. In Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 93–104, Indianapolis, June 1998. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  9. [NR01]
    George C. Necula and Shree P. Rahul. Oracle-based checking of untrusted programs. In The 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, January 2001. To appear.Google Scholar
  10. [RRW95]
    R. Ramesh, I. V. Ramakrishnan, and David Scott Warren. Automatadriven indexing of Prolog clauses. Journal of Logic Programming, 23(2):151–202, May 1995.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • George C. Necula
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations