←back to thread

V8 Garbage Collector

(wingolog.org)
84 points swah | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
ZeroConcerns ◴[] No.45925770[source]
Interesting article! One thing that made me literally LOL was the fact that several exploits were enabled via a Google "style recommendation" that caused on-heap length fields to be signed and thus subject to sign-extension attacks.

The conversation-leading-up-to-that played out a bit like this in my head:

Google Engineer #1: Hey, shouldn't that length field be unsigned? Not like a negative value ever makes sense there?

GE#2: Style guide says no

GE#1: Yeah, but that could easily be exploited, right?

GE#2: Maybe, but at least I won't get dinged on code review: my metrics are already really lagging this quarter

GE#1: Good point! In fact, I'll pre-prepare an emergency patch for that whole thing, as my team lead indicated I've been a bit slow on the turnaround lately...

replies(2): >>45925968 #>>45925990 #
dbdr ◴[] No.45925990[source]
Quote from their style guide:

> The fact that unsigned arithmetic doesn't model the behavior of a simple integer, but is instead defined by the standard to model modular arithmetic (wrapping around on overflow/underflow), means that a significant class of bugs cannot be diagnosed by the compiler.

Fair enough, but signed arithmetic doesn't model the behavior of a "simple integer" (supposedly the mathematical concept) either. Instead, overflow in signed arithmetic is undefined behavior. Does that actually lead to the compiler being able to diagnose bugs? What's the claimed benefit exactly?

replies(3): >>45926013 #>>45926616 #>>45926636 #
1. sltkr ◴[] No.45926616[source]
Tools like UBsan [1] can detect integer overflow in debug builds, and are used internally at Google to run automated tests.

So if you use a signed integer, there is a chance that overflows are caught in tests.

1. https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html