================
@@ -0,0 +1,387 @@
+=========================================
+Lightweight Fault Isolation (LFI) in LLVM
+=========================================
+
+.. contents::
+   :local:
+
+Introduction
+++++++++++++
+
+Lightweight Fault Isolation (LFI) is a compiler-based sandboxing technology for
+native code. Like WebAssembly and Native Client, LFI isolates sandboxed code 
in-process
+(i.e., in the same address space as a host application).
+
+LFI is designed from the ground up to sandbox existing code, such as C/C++
+libraries (including assembly code) and device drivers.
+
+LFI aims for the following goals:
+
+* Compatibility: LFI can be used to sandbox nearly all existing C/C++/assembly
+  libraries unmodified (they just need to be recompiled). Sandboxed libraries
+  work with existing system call interfaces, and are compatible with existing
+  development tools such as profilers, debuggers, and sanitizers.
+* Performance: LFI aims for minimal overhead vs. unsandboxed code.
+* Security: The LFI runtime and compiler elements aim to be simple and
+  verifiable when possible.
+* Usability: LFI aims to make it easy as possible to used retrofit sandboxing,
+  i.e., to migrate from unsandboxed to sandboxed libraries with minimal effort.
+
+When building a program for the LFI target the compiler is designed to ensure
+that the program will only be able to access memory within a limited region of
+the virtual address space, starting from where the program is loaded (the
+current design sets this region to a size of 4GiB of virtual memory). Programs
+built for the LFI target are restricted to using a subset of the instruction
+set, designed so that the programs can be soundly confined to their sandbox
+region. LFI programs must run inside of an "emulator" (usually called the LFI
+runtime), responsible for initializing the sandbox region, loading the program,
+and servicing system call requests, or other forms of runtime calls.
+
+LFI uses an architecture-specific sandboxing scheme based on the general
+technique of Software-Based Fault Isolation (SFI). Initial support for LFI in
+LLVM is focused on the AArch64 platform, with x86-64 support planned for the
+future. The initial version of LFI for AArch64 is designed to support the
+Armv8.1 AArch64 architecture.
+
+See `https://github.com/lfi-project <https://github.com/lfi-project/>`__ for
+details about the LFI project and additional software needed to run LFI
+programs.
+
+Compiler Requirements
++++++++++++++++++++++
+
+When building for the ``aarch64_lfi`` target, the compiler must restrict use of
+the instruction set to a subset of instructions, which are known to be safe
+from a sandboxing perspective. To do this, we apply a set of simple rewrites at
+the assembly language level to transform standard native AArch64 assembly into
+LFI-compatible AArch64 assembly.
+
+These rewrites (also called "expansions") are applied at the very end of the
+LLVM compilation pipeline (during the assembler step). This allows the rewrites
+to be applied to hand-written assembly, including inline assembly.
+
+Compiler Options
+================
+
+The LFI target has several configuration options.
+
+* ``+lfi-stores``: create a "stores-only" sandbox, where rewrites are not 
applied to loads.
----------------
smithp35 wrote:

IIUC there are three rewrites
* loads
* stores
* jumps

The way the architectural properties are modelled is as a toggle `+feature` and 
`+nofeature`

When seeing those I instinctively thought that +lfi-stores enables stores, 
without the side-effects of disabling loads and jumps.

Personally I think it would be helpful to follow a similar feature toggle model 
when using that syntax. For example ``+lfi-stores`` becomes 
``+nolfi-loads+nolfi-jumps``. These options also compose better, for example 
``+lfi-stores+lfi-jumps`` is user error.

If these must be as they are, then perhaps call them ``+lfi-stores-only`` and 
``+lfi-jumps-only`` to make it clearer.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/167061
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to