Patent Grant
11797398
Safety critical systems are ever present in today's world, from high visibility systems like nuclear power plants and airliners, to more commonplace systems like anti-lock brakes and traffic lights. These systems are becoming more complex over time, adding functionalities as hardware processing capability grows. Designers struggle to ensure that critical safety properties remain intact in these increasingly complex systems.
Over the past 50 years, primary approaches to safety have been redundancy and careful development methodologies. A number of variations on redundancy exist, but all involve duplicating functionality to reduce failure probability. Redundant systems may be kept as backups awaiting a failure event, or may be processing in parallel with results decided by vote.
As for development methodologies, extensive verification and testing may be performed prior to deployment, to reduce coding errors that may lead to failures.
In accordance with some embodiments, a system is provided, comprising enforcement hardware configured to execute, at run time, a state machine in parallel with application code. Executing the state machine may include: maintaining metadata that corresponds to one or more state variables of the state machine; matching instructions in the application code to transitions in the state machine; and, in response to determining that an instruction in the application code does not match any transition from a current state of the state machine, causing an error handling routine to be executed.
In accordance with some embodiments, a system is provided, comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having encoded thereon instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method comprising translating a description of a state machine into at least one policy to be enforced at run time based on metadata labels associated with application code and/or data manipulated by the application code.
In accordance with some embodiments, a method is provided that is performed by any of the systems describe herein.
In accordance with some embodiments, at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium is provided, having encoded thereon instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, perform any of the methods described herein.
Hardware redundancy has been a mainstay of safety engineering for dealing with probabilistic run time errors. Such errors may result from corruption of data that occur sporadically in hardware (e.g., due to exposure to cosmic rays), and may be mitigated by running multiple redundant systems in parallel and adopting a result returned by a plurality of the redundant systems.
The inventors have recognized and appreciated that redundancy may be expensive in both hardware cost and power consumption. Moreover, redundant systems commonly use multiple copies of a same software implementation executing on respective processor cores, so that an overall system may still be vulnerable to coding errors (colloquially referred to as “bugs”) in the software implementation. While it is possible to independently develop different implementations of a software application, it may be prohibitively expensive to do so. Therefore, developers may rely on verification and testing to reduce coding errors, but such techniques may not be able to completely eliminate coding errors.
The inventors have further recognized and appreciated that approaches such as testing and redundancy were developed in an era prior to the advent of significant cybersecurity threats. As such, these approaches have focused on reducing software bugs and mitigating run time hardware glitches, as opposed to defending against deliberate malicious cyberattacks. Due to the prevalence of such attacks in today's environment, as well as complexity of modern software, it has become challenging to ensure correct functioning of safety critical systems at run time.
Accordingly, in some embodiments, a state machine may be provided that represents application behavior that is considered safe or otherwise desirable. Enforcement hardware may be provided to execute such a state machine in parallel with application code at run time. For instance, the enforcement hardware may, at run time, maintain metadata that corresponds to one or more state variables of the state machine. As the application code is executed, the enforcement hardware may match instructions in the application code to transitions in the state machine, and may perform metadata updates according to the matched transitions. If an instruction is attempted that does not match any allowed transition from a current state, the enforcement hardware may cause a suitable error handling routine to be executed, which may include generating an alert, preventing the instruction from being executed, etc.
In some embodiments, transitions in a state machine may be translated into rules of one or more policies. Enforcement hardware may be provided that includes policy enforcement hardware for enforcing the one or more policies. For instance, the policy enforcement hardware may continuously check run time behavior of an application against the one or more policies. If a policy violation is detected, which may indicate the application is deviating from intended safe or otherwise desirable behavior, the policy enforcement hardware may cause a suitable error handling routine to be executed, which may include generating an alert, halting the application, etc.
Traditional redundancy-based safety mechanisms (e.g., triple modular redundancy) replicate an entire functional unit including both software and hardware, and simply compare outputs from the replicas. By contrast, in some embodiments, enforcement hardware may be provided that is integrated with an application processor, and may check correctness as an application executes. In this manner, independent checking may be provided using only a small amount of additional hardware, without redundant processor cores. This may save power (e.g., by running one core instead of three), memory, and/or area on a System-on-Chip (SoC). Moreover, the enforcement hardware may be able to detect errors before such errors propagate to outputs.
In some embodiments, a general-purpose policy enforcement mechanism may be provided that is suitable for enforcing not only safety policies, but also privacy and/or security policies. For instance, the policy enforcement hardware may, at run time, maintain metadata for use in enforcing safety, privacy, and/or security policies. However, that is not required. In some embodiments, a safety-specific enforcement mechanism may be used in addition to, or instead of, a general-purpose policy enforcement mechanism.
Illustrative techniques for policy enforcement are described herein. For instance, in some embodiments, memory locations may be associated with metadata for use in enforcing one or more policies, and instructions may be checked for compliance with the one or more policies. Given an instruction to be executed, metadata associated with an opcode of the instruction and/or metadata associated with one or more operands of the instruction may be checked to determine if the instruction should be allowed. Additionally, or alternatively, appropriate metadata may be associated with an output of the instruction.
In some embodiments, data that is manipulated (e.g., modified, consumed, and/or produced) by the host processor 110 may be stored in the application memory 120. Such data is referred to herein as “application data,” as distinguished from metadata used for enforcing policies. The latter may be stored in the metadata memory 125. It should be appreciated that application data may include data manipulated by an operating system (OS), instructions of the OS, data manipulated by one or more user applications, and/or instructions of the one or more user applications.
In some embodiments, the application memory 120 and the metadata memory 125 may be physically separate, and the host processor 110 may have no access to the metadata memory 125. In this manner, even if an attacker succeeds in injecting malicious code into the application memory 120 and causing the host processor 110 to execute the malicious code, the metadata memory 125 may not be affected. However, it should be appreciated that aspects of the present disclosure are not limited to storing application data and metadata on physically separate memories. Additionally, or alternatively, metadata may be stored in a same memory as application data, and a memory management component may be used that implements an appropriate protection scheme to prevent instructions executing on the host processor 110 from modifying the metadata. Additionally, or alternatively, metadata may be intermingled with application data in a same memory, and one or more policies may be used to protect the metadata.
In some embodiments, tag processing hardware 140 may be provided to ensure that instructions being executed by the host processor 110 comply with one or more policies. The tag processing hardware 140 may include any suitable circuit component or combination of circuit components. For instance, the tag processing hardware 140 may include a tag map table 142 that maps addresses in the application memory 120 to addresses in the metadata memory 125. For example, the tag map table 142 may map address X in the application memory 120 to address Y in the metadata memory 125. Such an address Y is referred to herein as a “metadata tag” or simply a “tag.” A value stored at the address Y is also referred to herein as a “metadata tag” or simply a “tag.”
In some embodiments, a value stored at the address Y may in turn be an address Z. Such indirection may be repeated any suitable number of times, and may eventually lead to a data structure in the metadata memory 125 for storing metadata. Such metadata, as well as any intermediate address (e.g., the address Z), are also referred to herein as “metadata tags” or simply “tags.”
It should be appreciated that aspects of the present disclosure are not limited to a tag map table that stores addresses in a metadata memory. In some embodiments, a tag map table entry itself may store metadata, so that the tag processing hardware 140 may be able to access the metadata without performing any further memory operation. In some embodiments, a tag map table entry may store a selected bit pattern, where a first portion of the bit pattern may encode metadata, and a second portion of the bit pattern may encode an address in a metadata memory where further metadata may be stored. This may provide a desired balance between speed and expressivity. For instance, the tag processing hardware 140 may be able to check certain policies quickly, using only the metadata stored in the tag map table entry itself. For other policies with more complex rules, the tag processing hardware 140 may access the further metadata stored in the metadata memory 125.
Referring again to
In some embodiments, a metadata memory address Z may be stored at the metadata memory address Y. Metadata to be associated with the application data stored at the application memory address X may be stored at the metadata memory address Z, instead of (or in addition to) the metadata memory address Y. For instance, a binary representation of a metadata symbol “RED” may be stored at the metadata memory address Z. By storing the metadata memory address Z in the metadata memory address Y, the application data stored at the application memory address X may be tagged “RED.”
In this manner, the binary representation of the metadata symbol “RED” may be stored only once in the metadata memory 120. For instance, if application data stored at another application memory address X′ is also to be tagged “RED,” the tag map table 142 may map the application memory address X′ to a metadata memory address Y′ where the metadata memory address Z is also stored.
Moreover, in this manner, tag update may be simplified. For instance, if the application data stored at the application memory address X is to be tagged “BLUE” at a subsequent time, a metadata memory address Z′ may be written at the metadata memory address Y, to replace the metadata memory address Z, and a binary representation of the metadata symbol “BLUE” may be stored at the metadata memory address Z′.
Thus, the inventors have recognized and appreciated that a chain of metadata memory addresses of any suitable length N may be used for tagging, including N=0 (e.g., where a binary representation of a metadata symbol is stored at the metadata memory address Y itself).
The association between application data and metadata (also referred to herein as “tagging”) may be done at any suitable level of granularity, and/or variable granularity. For instance, tagging may be done on a word-by-word basis. Additionally, or alternatively, a region in memory may be mapped to a single tag, so that all words in that region are associated with the same metadata. This may advantageously reduce a size of the tag map table 142 and/or the metadata memory 125. For example, a single tag may be maintained for an entire address range, as opposed to maintaining multiple tags corresponding, respectively, to different addresses in the address range.
In some embodiments, the tag processing hardware 140 may be configured to apply one or more rules to metadata associated with an instruction and/or metadata associated with one or more operands of the instruction to determine if the instruction should be allowed. For instance, the host processor 110 may fetch and execute an instruction, and may queue a result of executing the instruction into the write interlock 112. Before the result is written back into the application memory 120, the host processor 110 may send, to the tag processing hardware 140, an instruction type (e.g., opcode), an address where the instruction is stored, one or more memory addresses referenced by the instruction, and/or one or more register identifiers. Such a register identifier may identify a register used by the host processor 110 in executing the instruction, such as a register for storing an operand or a result of the instruction.
In some embodiments, destructive read instructions may be queued in addition to, or instead of, write instructions. For instance, subsequent instructions attempting to access a target address of a destructive read instruction may be queued in a memory region that is not cached. If and when it is determined that the destructive read instruction should be allowed, the queued instructions may be loaded for execution.
In some embodiments, a destructive read instruction may be allowed to proceed, and data read from a target address may be captured in a buffer. If and when it is determined that the destructed read instruction should be allowed, the data captured in the buffer may be discarded. If and when it is determined that the destructive read instruction should not be allowed, the data captured in the buffer may be restored to the target address. Additionally, or alternatively, a subsequent read may be serviced by the buffered data.
It should be appreciated that aspects of the present disclosure are not limited to performing metadata processing on instructions that have been executed by a host processor, such as instructions that have been retired by the host processor's execution pipeline. In some embodiments, metadata processing may be performed on instructions before, during, and/or after the host processor's execution pipeline.
In some embodiments, given an address received from the host processor 110 (e.g., an address where an instruction is stored, or an address referenced by an instruction), the tag processing hardware 140 may use the tag map table 142 to identify a corresponding tag. Additionally, or alternatively, for a register identifier received from the host processor 110, the tag processing hardware 140 may access a tag from a tag register file 146 within the tag processing hardware 140.
In some embodiments, if an application memory address does not have a corresponding tag in the tag map table 142, the tag processing hardware 140 may send a query to a policy processor 150. The query may include the application memory address in question, and the policy processor 150 may return a tag for that application memory address. Additionally, or alternatively, the policy processor 150 may create a new tag map entry for an address range including the application memory address. In this manner, the appropriate tag may be made available, for future reference, in the tag map table 142 in association with the application memory address in question.
In some embodiments, the tag processing hardware 140 may send a query to the policy processor 150 to check if an instruction executed by the host processor 110 should be allowed. The query may include one or more inputs, such as an instruction type (e.g., opcode) of the instruction, a tag for a program counter, a tag for an application memory address from which the instruction is fetched (e.g., a word in memory to which the program counter points), a tag for a register in which an operand of the instruction is stored, and/or a tag for an application memory address referenced by the instruction. In one example, the instruction may be a load instruction, and an operand of the instruction may be an application memory address from which application data is to be loaded. The query may include, among other things, a tag for a register in which the application memory address is stored, as well as a tag for the application memory address itself. In another example, the instruction may be an arithmetic instruction, and there may be two operands. The query may include, among other things, a first tag for a first register in which a first operand is stored, and a second tag for a second register in which a second operand is stored.
It should also be appreciated that aspects of the present disclosure are not limited to performing metadata processing on a single instruction at a time. In some embodiments, multiple instructions in a host processor's ISA may be checked together as a bundle, for example, via a single query to the policy processor 150. Such a query may include more inputs to allow the policy processor 150 to check all of the instructions in the bundle. Similarly, a CISC instruction, which may correspond semantically to multiple operations, may be checked via a single query to the policy processor 150, where the query may include sufficient inputs to allow the policy processor 150 to check all of the constituent operations within the CISC instruction.
In some embodiments, the policy processor 150 may include a configurable processing unit, such as a microprocessor, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), and/or any other suitable circuitry. The policy processor 150 may have loaded therein one or more policies that describe allowed operations of the host processor 110. In response to a query from the tag processing hardware 140, the policy processor 150 may evaluate one or more of the policies to determine if an instruction in question should be allowed. For instance, the tag processing hardware 140 may send an interrupt signal to the policy processor 150, along with one or more inputs relating to the instruction in question (e.g., as described above). The policy processor 150 may store the inputs of the query in a working memory (e.g., in one or more queues) for immediate or deferred processing. For example, the policy processor 150 may prioritize processing of queries in some suitable manner (e.g., based on a priority flag associated with each query).
In some embodiments, the policy processor 150 may evaluate one or more policies on one or more inputs (e.g., one or more input tags) to determine if an instruction in question should be allowed. If the instruction is not to be allowed, the policy processor 150 may so notify the tag processing hardware 140. If the instruction is to be allowed, the policy processor 150 may compute one or more outputs (e.g., one or more output tags) to be returned to the tag processing hardware 140. As one example, the instruction may be a store instruction, and the policy processor 150 may compute an output tag for an application memory address to which application data is to be stored. As another example, the instruction may be an arithmetic instruction, and the policy processor 150 may compute an output tag for a register for storing a result of executing the arithmetic instruction.
In some embodiments, the policy processor 150 may be programmed to perform one or more tasks in addition to, or instead of, those relating to evaluation of policies. For instance, the policy processor 150 may perform tasks relating to tag initialization, boot loading, application loading, memory management (e.g., garbage collection) for the metadata memory 125, logging, debugging support, and/or interrupt processing. One or more of these tasks may be performed in the background (e.g., between servicing queries from the tag processing hardware 140).
In some embodiments, the tag processing hardware 140 may include a rule cache 144 for mapping one or more input tags to a decision and/or one or more output tags. For instance, a query into the rule cache 144 may be similarly constructed as a query to the policy processor 150 to check if an instruction executed by the host processor 110 should be allowed. If there is a cache hit, the rule cache 144 may output a decision as to whether to the instruction should be allowed, and/or one or more output tags (e.g., as described above in connection with the policy processor 150). Such a mapping in the rule cache 144 may be created using a query response from the policy processor 150. However, that is not required, as in some embodiments, one or more mappings may be installed into the rule cache 144 ahead of time.
In some embodiments, the rule cache 144 may be used to provide a performance enhancement. For instance, before querying the policy processor 150 with one or more input tags, the tag processing hardware 140 may first query the rule cache 144 with the one or more input tags. In case of a cache hit, the tag processing hardware 140 may proceed with a decision and/or one or more output tags from the rule cache 144, without querying the policy processor 150. This may provide a significant speedup. In case of a cache miss, the tag processing hardware 140 may query the policy processor 150, and may install a response from the policy processor 150 into the rule cache 144 for potential future use.
In some embodiments, if the tag processing hardware 140 determines that an instruction in question should be allowed (e.g., based on a hit in the rule cache 144, or a miss in the rule cache 144, followed by a response from the policy processor 150 indicating no policy violation has been found), the tag processing hardware 140 may indicate to the write interlock 112 that a result of executing the instruction may be written back to memory. Additionally, or alternatively, the tag processing hardware 140 may update the metadata memory 125, the tag map table 142, and/or the tag register file 146 with one or more output tags (e.g., as received from the rule cache 144 or the policy processor 150). As one example, for a store instruction, the metadata memory 125 may be updated based on an address translation by the tag map table 142. For instance, an application memory address referenced by the store instruction may be used to look up a metadata memory address from the tag map table 142, and metadata received from the rule cache 144 or the policy processor 150 may be stored to the metadata memory 125 at the metadata memory address. As another example, where metadata to be updated is stored in an entry in the tag map table 142 (as opposed to being stored in the metadata memory 125), that entry in the tag map table 142 may be updated. As another example, for an arithmetic instruction, an entry in the tag register file 146 corresponding to a register used by the host processor 110 for storing a result of executing the arithmetic instruction may be updated with an appropriate tag.
In some embodiments, if the tag processing hardware 140 determines that the instruction in question represents a policy violation (e.g., based on a miss in the rule cache 144, followed by a response from the policy processor 150 indicating a policy violation has been found), the tag processing hardware 140 may indicate to the write interlock 112 that a result of executing the instruction should be discarded, instead of being written back to memory. Additionally, or alternatively, the tag processing hardware 140 may send an interrupt to the host processor 110. In response to receiving the interrupt, the host processor 110 may switch to any suitable violation processing code. For example, the host processor 100 may halt, reset, log the violation and continue, perform an integrity check on application code and/or data manipulated by the application code, notify an operator, etc.
In some embodiments, the tag processing hardware 140 may include one or more configuration registers. Such a register may be accessible (e.g., by the policy processor 150) via a configuration interface of the tag processing hardware 140. In some embodiments, the tag register file 146 may be implemented as configuration registers. Additionally, or alternatively, there may be one or more application configuration registers and/or one or more metadata configuration registers.
Although details of implementation are shown in
In the example shown in
In some embodiments, the compiler 205 may be programmed to generate information for use in enforcing policies. For instance, as the compiler 205 translates source code into executable code, the compiler 205 may generate information regarding data types, program semantics and/or memory layout. As one example, the compiler 205 may be programmed to mark a boundary between one or more instructions of a function and one or more instructions that implement calling convention operations (e.g., passing one or more parameters from a caller function to a callee function, returning one or more values from the callee function to the caller function, storing a return address to indicate where execution is to resume in the caller function's code when the callee function returns control back to the caller function, etc.). Such boundaries may be used, for instance, during initialization to tag certain instructions as function prologue or function epilogue. At run time, a stack policy may be enforced so that, as function prologue instructions execute, certain locations in a call stack (e.g., where a return address is stored) may be tagged as “frame” locations, and as function epilogue instructions execute, the “frame” tags may be removed. The stack policy may indicate that instructions implementing a body of the function (as opposed to function prologue and function epilogue) only have read access to “frame” locations. This may prevent an attacker from overwriting a return address and thereby gaining control.
As another example, the compiler 205 may be programmed to perform control flow analysis, for instance, to identify one or more control transfer points and respective destinations. Such information may be used in enforcing a control flow policy. As yet another example, the compiler 205 may be programmed to perform type analysis, for example, by applying type labels such as Pointer, Integer, Floating-Point Number, etc. Such information may be used to enforce a policy that prevents misuse (e.g., using a floating-point number as a pointer).
Although not shown in
In the example of
It should be appreciated that aspects of the present disclosure are not limited to resolving metadata symbols at load time. In some embodiments, one or more metadata symbols may be resolved statically (e.g., at compile time or link time). For example, the policy compiler 220 may process one or more applicable policies, and resolve one or more metadata symbols defined by the one or more policies into a statically-defined binary representation. Additionally, or alternatively, the policy linker 225 may resolve one or more metadata symbols into a statically-defined binary representation, or a pointer to a data structure storing a statically-defined binary representation. The inventors have recognized and appreciated that resolving metadata symbols statically may advantageously reduce load time processing. However, aspects of the present disclosure are not limited to resolving metadata symbols in any particular manner.
In some embodiments, the policy linker 225 may be programmed to process object code (e.g., as output by the linker 210), policy code (e.g., as output by the policy compiler 220), and/or a target description, to output an initialization specification. The initialization specification may be used by the loader 215 to securely initialize a target system having one or more hardware components (e.g., the illustrative hardware system 100 shown in
In some embodiments, the target description may include descriptions of a plurality of named entities. A named entity may represent a component of a target system. As one example, a named entity may represent a hardware component, such as a configuration register, a program counter, a register file, a timer, a status flag, a memory transfer unit, an input/output device, etc. As another example, a named entity may represent a software component, such as a function, a module, a driver, a service routine, etc.
In some embodiments, the policy linker 225 may be programmed to search the target description to identify one or more entities to which a policy pertains. For instance, the policy may map certain entity names to corresponding metadata symbols, and the policy linker 225 may search the target description to identify entities having those entity names. The policy linker 225 may identify descriptions of those entities from the target description, and use the descriptions to annotate, with appropriate metadata symbols, the object code output by the linker 210. For instance, the policy linker 225 may apply a Read label to a .rodata section of an Executable and Linkable Format (ELF) file, a Read label and a Write label to a .data section of the ELF file, and an Execute label to a .text section of the ELF file. Such information may be used to enforce a policy for memory access control and/or executable code protection (e.g., by checking read, write, and/or execute privileges).
It should be appreciated that aspects of the present disclosure are not limited to providing a target description to the policy linker 225. In some embodiments, a target description may be provided to the policy compiler 220, in addition to, or instead of, the policy linker 225. The policy compiler 220 may check the target description for errors. For instance, if an entity referenced in a policy does not exist in the target description, an error may be flagged by the policy compiler 220. Additionally, or alternatively, the policy compiler 220 may search the target description for entities that are relevant for one or more policies to be enforced, and may produce a filtered target description that includes entities descriptions for the relevant entities only. For instance, the policy compiler 220 may match an entity name in an “init” statement of a policy to be enforced to an entity description in the target description, and may remove from the target description (or simply ignore) entity descriptions with no corresponding “init” statement.
In some embodiments, the loader 215 may initialize a target system based on an initialization specification produced by the policy linker 225. For instance, with reference to the example of
In some embodiments, the policy linker 225 and/or the loader 215 may maintain a mapping of binary representations of metadata back to human readable versions of metadata labels. Such a mapping may be used, for example, by a debugger 230. For instance, in some embodiments, the debugger 230 may be provided to display a human readable version of an initialization specification, which may list one or more entities and, for each entity, a set of one or more metadata labels associated with the entity. Additionally, or alternatively, the debugger 230 may be programmed to display assembly code annotated with metadata labels, such as assembly code generated by disassembling object code annotated with metadata labels. An example of such assembly code is shown in
In some embodiments, a conventional debugging tool may be extended to allow review of issues related to policy enforcement, for example, as described above. Additionally, or alternatively, a stand-alone policy debugging tool may be provided.
In some embodiments, the loader 215 may load the binary representations of the metadata labels into the metadata memory 125, and may record the mapping between application memory addresses and metadata memory addresses in the tag map table 142. For instance, the loader 215 may create an entry in the tag map table 142 that maps an application memory address where an instruction is stored in the application memory 120, to a metadata memory address where metadata associated with the instruction is stored in the metadata memory 125. Additionally, or alternatively, the loader 215 may store metadata in the tag map table 142 itself (as opposed to the metadata memory 125), to allow access without performing any memory operation.
In some embodiments, the loader 215 may initialize the tag register file 146 in addition to, or instead of, the tag map table 142. For instance, the tag register file 146 may include a plurality of registers corresponding, respectively, to a plurality of entities. The loader 215 may identify, from the initialization specification, metadata associated with the entities, and store the metadata in the respective registers in the tag register file 146.
With reference again to the example of
In some embodiments, a metadata label may be based on multiple metadata symbols. For instance, an entity may be subject to multiple policies, and may therefore be associated with different metadata symbols corresponding, respectively, to the different policies. The inventors have recognized and appreciated that it may be desirable that a same set of metadata symbols be resolved by the loader 215 to a same binary representation (which is sometimes referred to herein as a “canonical” representation). For instance, a metadata label {A, B, C} and a metadata label {B, A, C} may be resolved by the loader 215 to a same binary representation. In this manner, metadata labels that are syntactically different but semantically equivalent may have the same binary representation.
The inventors have further recognized and appreciated it may be desirable to ensure that a binary representation of metadata is not duplicated in metadata storage. For instance, as discussed above, the illustrative rule cache 144 in the example of
Moreover, the inventors have recognized and appreciated that having a one-to-one correspondence between binary representations of metadata and their storage locations may facilitate metadata comparison. For instance, equality between two pieces of metadata may be determined simply by comparing metadata memory addresses, as opposed to comparing binary representations of metadata. This may result in significant performance improvement, especially where the binary representations are large (e.g., many metadata symbols packed into a single metadata label).
Accordingly, in some embodiments, the loader 215 may, prior to storing a binary representation of metadata (e.g., into the metadata memory 125), check if the binary representation of metadata has already been stored. If the binary representation of metadata has already been stored, instead of storing it again at a different storage location, the loader 215 may refer to the existing storage location. Such a check may be done at startup and/or when a program is loaded subsequent to startup (with or without dynamic linking).
Additionally, or alternatively, a similar check may be performed when a binary representation of metadata is created as a result of evaluating one or more policies (e.g., by the illustrative policy processor 150). If the binary representation of metadata has already been stored, a reference to the existing storage location may be used (e.g., installed in the illustrative rule cache 144).
In some embodiments, the loader 215 may create a hash table mapping hash values to storage locations. Before storing a binary representation of metadata, the loader 215 may use a hash function to reduce the binary representation of metadata into a hash value, and check if the hash table already contains an entry associated with the hash value. If so, the loader 215 may determine that the binary representation of metadata has already been stored, and may retrieve, from the entry, information relating to the binary representation of metadata (e.g., a pointer to the binary representation of metadata, or a pointer to that pointer). If the hash table does not already contain an entry associated with the hash value, the loader 215 may store the binary representation of metadata (e.g., to a register or a location in a metadata memory), create a new entry in the hash table in association with the hash value, and store appropriate information in the new entry (e.g., a register identifier, a pointer to the binary representation of metadata in the metadata memory, a pointer to that pointer, etc.). However, it should be appreciated that aspects of the present disclosure are not limited to the use of a hash table for keeping track of binary representations of metadata that have already been stored. Additionally, or alternatively, other data structures may be used, such as a graph data structure, an ordered list, an unordered list, etc. Any suitable data structure or combination of data structures may be selected based on any suitable criterion or combination of criteria, such as access time, memory usage, etc.
It should be appreciated that examples of details of implementation are provided herein solely for illustrative purposes. Furthermore, the techniques disclosed herein may be used individually or in any suitable combination, as aspects of the present disclosure are not limited to the use of any particular technique or combination of techniques.
For instance, while examples are discussed herein that include a compiler (e.g., the illustrative compiler 205 and/or the illustrative policy compiler 220 in the example of
The inventors have recognized and appreciated that state machines provide a natural way to express desired behavior of a system. For instance, a safety property may be expressed based on a set of states that are designated as being safe, and/or a set of transitions that are designated as being allowed. An allowed transition may be such that, if a system starts in a safe state and takes the allowed transition, the system may end in a safe state (which may be the same as, or different from, the start state). In this manner, a formal proof may be given that the safety property will always be satisfied as long as the system is initialized to a safe state and only takes allowed transitions.
The inventors have further recognized and appreciated various advantages of using a state machine to model desired behavior of a system. For instance, a state machine that represents desired behavior may be simpler than full implementation code, and therefore may be easier to verify. In some embodiments, formal methods tools may be used to prove various properties of state machines.
Moreover, a state machine model may be developed independently from application software, and therefore may not be susceptible to coding errors that occur in the application software. When such a state machine is executed at run time alongside the application software, an attempt by the application software to execute an instruction that does not correspond to any allowed transition in the state machine may indicate a presence of a coding error. By contrast, redundancy-based safety mechanisms may be unable to detect coding errors. That is because a redundancy-based safety mechanism typically runs a same software implementation on multiple sets of hardware. As such, a coding error in the software implementation may be replicated on all replicas, which may return a same, albeit incorrect, answer.
Accordingly, illustrative techniques are described herein for using a state machine model to enforce one or more properties. Examples of properties that may be enforced in this manner include, but are not limited to, safety properties, spatial properties (e.g., information flow), and/or temporal properties (e.g., execution ordering).
In some embodiments, a hybrid approach may be used, where desired properties may be expressed as software-defined policies, and hardware logic may be provided to enforce the software-defined policies. The hardware logic may be integrated into an SoC. For instance, the hardware logic may include the illustrative write interlock 112, the illustrative tag processing hardware 140, and/or the illustrative policy processor 150 in the example of
In some embodiments, policy enforcement hardware may check every instruction for compliance with one or more policies. If an instruction violates a policy, the policy enforcement hardware may cause an appropriate violation handling routine to be executed, which may include generating an alert, blocking the instruction from executing, etc.
In some embodiments, policy enforcement hardware may maintain strict separation between policy-related memory content and other memory content. For instance, policy enforcement software, policy code, and/or metadata manipulated by the policy enforcement hardware may reside in the illustrative metadata memory 125 in the example of
The inventors have recognized and appreciated that policy enforcement hardware that is integrated into an SoC may be able to check policy compliance at a low level, such as individual function calls and/or data updates. Such fine-grained checking may allow detection of errors internal to an application, before the errors propagate to outputs.
Moreover, because enforcement may be programmable via policies, multiple policies may be enforced at the same time. This ability to support multiple policies may allow simultaneous enforcement of privacy, security, and/or safety policies, which may prevent cyberattacks before such attacks lead to safety violations. For instance, policies may be written to address a wide range of security concerns, such as protecting memory against buffer overflows, preventing control flow hijacking (e.g., Return-Oriented Programming attacks), and/or managing information integrity and/or confidentiality.
In some embodiments, policies may be written to provide instruction-by-instruction assurances for a system. For instance, a policy may indicate metadata to be maintained about one or more words in a memory accessible to a host processor. Additionally, or alternatively, a policy may indicate metadata to be maintained that corresponds to one or more state variables of a state machine model. Additionally, or alternatively, a policy may include one or more rules that may be applied, based on relevant metadata, to determine whether an instruction should be allowed.
In some embodiments, policy rules may be written in a policy language, which may be designed to support analysis and verification. For instance, the policy language may include syntax designed to support description of finite state machines. Additionally, or alternatively, the policy language may include syntax designed to describe properties of interest for a certain application domain.
It should be appreciated that the techniques introduced above and discussed in greater detail below may be implemented in any of numerous ways, as the techniques are not limited to any particular manner of implementation.
In some embodiments, a finite state machine (FSM) may include one or more states and/or one or more transitions. A transition may have a source state and a target state. The source state and the target state may be the same state, or different states. Pictorially, an FSM may be represented as a directed graph in which nodes represent states and edges represent transitions between states.
In some embodiments, one or more safety properties to be monitored during application execution may be provided via a state machine description.
In some embodiments, correct functioning of a system may be described using an FSM. For instance, in the example of
In some embodiments, the FSM describing correct functioning of the above system may only have transitions that would keep the system in a safe state. For instance, a transition representing the space heater being turned on from a state in which the microwave oven is already on, and vice versa, may not be in this FSM, because such a transition would have taken the system to the unsafe state, in which both appliances are on. Such disallowed transitions are shown as dashed arrows in
In some embodiments, an FSM specification of correct behavior may be translated into a policy to be enforced at run time by policy enforcement hardware. For instance, each possible value of each state variable of the FSM may be assigned a metadata symbol (e.g., Heater_On, Heater_Off, Microwave_On, and Microwave_Off), and a transition of the FSM may be translated into one or more policy rules. At run time, relevant aspects of the software may be labeled with these metadata symbols, and the policy rules may be checked by the policy enforcement hardware.
In the example of
In some embodiments, the FSM 400 may have transitions that each represent a set of lights turning a selected color. For instance, after the FSM 400 has been in the green-red state for one minute, a transition may take place, representing the north-south lights turning from green to yellow, while the east-west lights remain red. This may cause the FSM 400 to enter in the yellow-red state.
In some embodiments, the FSM 400 may be translated into a policy. For example, the policy may include metadata symbols that correspond to values of state variables of the FSM 400. At run time, one or more of these metadata symbols may be written to a memory location accessible to policy enforcement hardware (e.g., a location in the illustrative metadata memory 125 in the example of
In this example, each value of each state variable is assigned a metadata symbol. Thus, a state of the FSM 400 may be represented as a pair of symbols, such as [NS_Red, EW_Green]. However, that is not required. In some embodiments, individual symbols may be used for combined colors, such as NS_Red_&_EW_Green.
Additionally, or alternatively, the policy may include metadata symbols that correspond to transitions in the FSM 400. At run time, one or more of these metadata symbols may be used to label application code executed by the traffic light controller. For instance, one or more of these metadata symbols may be written to a first memory location accessible to policy enforcement hardware (e.g., a location in the illustrative metadata memory 125 in the example of
In some embodiments, transitions in the FSM 100 may be translated into policy rules, such as one or more of the following policy rules.
In this example, a policy rule may start with allGrp, which may indicate that any instruction type may be eligible to trigger the rule.
In some embodiments, the “code== . . . ” portion of the rule may indicate one or more transition metadata labels (e.g., “GoGreenNS”). At run time, policy enforcement hardware may check if a metadata label associated with an instruction to be executed by a host processor (e.g., the illustrative host processor 110) matches the one or more transition metadata labels indicated in the “code== . . . ” portion of the rule.
In some embodiments, the first “env== . . . ” portion of the rule (before the right arrow) may indicate one or more state metadata labels (e.g., “NS_Red, EW_Red”). At run time, the policy enforcement hardware may check if a content of a metadata variable (e.g., an environment variable) maintained by the policy enforcement hardware matches the one or more state metadata labels indicated in the first “env== . . . ” portion of the rule.
In some embodiments, if the metadata label associated with the instruction to be executed matches the one or more transition metadata labels indicated in the “code== . . . ” portion of the rule, and the content of the metadata variable maintained by the policy enforcement hardware matches the one or more state metadata labels indicated in the first “env== . . . ” portion of the rule, then the policy enforcement hardware may allow execution of the instruction.
In some embodiments, the second “env== . . . ” portion of the rule (after the right arrow) may indicate one or more state metadata labels (e.g., “NS_Green, EW_Red”). At run time, if the policy enforcement hardware determines that the instruction should be allowed, the policy enforcement hardware may update the content of the metadata variable maintained by the policy enforcement hardware with the one or more state metadata labels indicated in the second “env== . . . ” portion of the rule. In this manner, the metadata variable may be used by the policy enforcement hardware to keep track of state of the FSM 400 while the policy enforcement hardware executes the FSM 400 at run time, alongside the application code of the traffic light controller.
The rules in the above example may be described as follows.
The following table shows an example of traffic light states over a period of time.
In the above example, the left column shows a succession of states for a traffic light that is not protected with policy enforcement hardware enforcing a safety policy. When such a system is attacked, it may be able to transition to an unsafe state (e.g., green-green). For instance, an attacker may cause the east-west lights to turn from red to green, while the north-south lights are still green. The right column shows a traffic light that is protected with policy enforcement hardware enforcing a safety policy. When such a system is attacked, an instruction (e.g., malicious code injected by an attacker) attempting to cause the east-west lights to turn from red to green, while the north-south lights are still green, may be blocked by the policy enforcement hardware, because no rule exists that allows a transition from [NS_Green, EW_Red] to [NS_Green, EW_Green]. In some embodiments, the policy enforcement hardware may cause a violation handler to be executed, which may in turn cause both the north-south lights and the east-west lights to reset to red.
Although not shown above, the policy enforcement hardware may, in some embodiments, block an instruction attempting to cause the east-west lights to turn from red to yellow, because no rule exists that allows a transition from EW_Red to EW_Yellow (regardless of color of the north-south lights).
In some embodiments, the illustrative codeOnlyLightPol policy may include one or more rules corresponding to disallowed transitions of the FSM 400, in addition to, or instead of, one or more rules corresponding to allowed transitions of the FSM 400. For instance, one or more of the following rules may be included, in addition to, or instead of, any of the seven illustrative rules above.
The additional rules may be described as follows.
In the above example, the underscore character may indicate a wildcard. For instance, the expression, code==_, in a rule may indicate that the rule may be triggered regardless of what metadata label is associated with an instruction to be executed.
The inventors have recognized and appreciated that, in some instances, it may be advantageous to explicitly model a disallowed transition in an FSM via a rule in a policy. For instance, the policy enforcement hardware may issue an appropriate error message (e.g., “East-West Lights Still Green”) when a rule corresponding to a disallowed transition is matched. In some embodiments, such an error message may be consumed by a debugging tool (e.g., the illustrative debugger 230 in the example of
Illustrative application code for a traffic light controller is provided below. In this example, there are two street variables, “ns_street” and “ew_street,” that each hold a current color of lights for a corresponding street. A set of functions may be provided to change colors of the lights by modifying the two street variables.
In some embodiments, the safety policy model described above in connection with
In some embodiments, the policy enforcement hardware may label each of the go_ . . . functions (e.g., go_green_NS) with a corresponding Go . . . metadata symbol (e.g., GoGreenNS). For instance, the first instruction of each of the go_ . . . functions may be labeled with a corresponding Go . . . metadata symbol. In this manner, when each of the go_ . . . functions (e.g., go_green_NS) is executed, the metadata on the first instruction (e.g., GoGreenNS) may match a “code== . . . ” portion (e.g., “code==[+GoGreenNS]”) of one or more rules (e.g., the first, seventh, and/or eighth rules) in the above example.
In some embodiments, if an attacker tries to call a function (e.g., go_green_EW) maliciously to cause a disallowed transition to an unsafe state (e.g., from the green-red state to the green-green state), the first instruction of the function may fail to match any rule of the safety policy model, which may trigger a violation. In some embodiments, the first instruction may match a rule that explicitly calls out a violation (e.g. the twelfth rule in the above example). In this manner, the function may be executed only when it is safe to do so.
In some embodiments, if a function call (e.g., go_green_NS) matches a rule in the safety policy model (e.g., the first rule in the above example), the policy enforcement hardware may update a state of the safety policy model according to the matched rule (e.g., updating the environment metadata variable to [NS_Green, EW_Red]).
The inventors have recognized and appreciated that it may be desirable to protect information flow from the go_ . . . functions to the two street variables (i.e., ns_street and ew_street) in the above illustrative application code. Such protection may be provided, in addition to, or instead of, executing the safety policy model alongside the application code.
For instance, the inventors have recognized and appreciated an attacker may be able to cause a transition into an unsafe state by modifying a street variable in an evasive manner, so that the policy enforcement hardware may not become aware of the transition. This may occur, for example, if the go_red_NS function saves a value of the local street variable, street, to a call stack (e.g., a C run time stack) in preparation for a function call (e.g., a call to vTimerSetTimerID). This saved value may be a first pointer pointing to a memory location of the global variable, ns_street. In some instances, an attacker may be able to cause execution of compromised code during the function call. The compromised code may use the first pointer to turn the north-south lights to green. Additionally, or alternatively, the compromised code may modify the call stack to replace the first pointer with a second pointer (e.g., a pointer pointing to an unused memory location). When execution returns to go_red_NS from the function call, the last line (i.e., *street=red) may write the value red to a memory location referenced by the second pointer (e.g., the unused memory location), instead of the first pointer. This may effectively nullify an intended update of the global variable, ns_street.
The inventors have recognized and appreciated that the above example involves a violation of information flow integrity. Accordingly, improved security may be provided by applying a safety policy in conjunction with a policy for maintaining information flow integrity, such as a policy that protects against unauthorized updates to the global variables ns_street and ew_street. For instance, techniques may be provided for associating metadata with the global variables ns_street and ew_street, and for performing access control based on the metadata.
In some embodiments, a policy may be provided for maintaining both safety and information flow integrity. For instance, a policy may be provided that, when enforced, cause policy enforcement hardware to directly link one or more state variables of a state machine model with one or more variables in application code (e.g., by associating one or more state metadata labels of a safety policy with values of the global variables ns_street and ew_street in the above illustrative application code). An example of such a hybrid policy is provided below.
In this example, the codePlusDataLightPol policy has state metadata symbols NS, EW, Red, Green, and Yellow. When the north-south lights are green or yellow, the policy enforcement hardware may store a metadata label comprising the symbol NS in an environment metadata variable (env). Likewise, when the east-west lights are green or yellow, the policy enforcement hardware may store a metadata label comprising the symbol EW in the environment metadata variable (env).
In some embodiments, the policy enforcement hardware may associate a metadata label comprising the symbol NS with a memory location of the global variable ns_street. Additionally, or alternatively, the metadata label may comprise a color symbol (e.g., Red, Green, or Yellow) corresponding to a current value of the global variable ns_street. Likewise, the policy enforcement hardware may associate a metadata label comprising the symbol EW with a memory location of the global variable ew_street. Additionally, or alternatively, the metadata label may comprise a color symbol (e.g., Red, Green, or Yellow) corresponding to a current value of the global variable ew_street.
In some embodiments, the codePlusDataLightPol policy may have transition metadata symbols InitRedNS and InitRedEW, in addition to, or instead of, the illustrative transition metadata symbols GoGreenNS, GoGreenEW, GoYellowNS, GoYellowEW, GoRedNS, and GoRedEW described above. For instance, the policy enforcement hardware may associate a metadata label comprising the symbol InitRedNS with the first instruction of a function that initializes the global variable ns_street to Red. Likewise, the policy enforcement hardware may associate a metadata label comprising the symbol InitRedNS with the first instruction of a function that initializes the global variable ns_street to Red. In some embodiments, only these initialization functions, as well as the go_ . . . functions in the above illustrative application code, may be allowed to modify the global variables ns_street and ew_street.
The rules in the illustrative codePlusDataLightPol policy may be described as follows. The first ten rules may start with storeGrp, which may indicate that only store instructions may be eligible to trigger those rules.
The inventors have recognized and appreciated that having rules triggered by store instructions may help to maintain correct information flow from the go_ . . . functions to the global variables ns_street and ew_street. Accordingly, in some embodiments, the policy enforcement hardware may label an entire body of a go_ . . . function (e.g., go_green_NS) in the above illustrative application code with a corresponding Go . . . metadata symbol (e.g., GoGreenNS). In this manner, all store instructions inside the go_ . . . function may be labeled. When such a store instruction is executed, an appropriate rule in the illustrative codePlusDataLightPol policy may be triggered (e.g., the first rule).
If compromised code attempts to modify one of the global variables ns_street and ew_street via a store instruction, that store instruction may not be labeled with any Go . . . metadata symbol, and therefore may not match any of the first six rules of the illustrative codePlusDataLightPol policy. Instead, the store instruction of the compromised code may match the seventh or eighth rule, which may trigger a safety violation. Thus, a vulnerable information flow path may be eliminated by triggering FSM transitions at store instructions, as opposed to at entry points of the go_ . . . functions as done in the illustrative codeOnlyLightPol policy.
It should be appreciated that aspects of the present disclosure are not limited to labeling instructions in any particular manner, or at all. In some embodiments, the first instruction of a go_ . . . function (e.g., go_green_NS) in the above illustrative application code may be labeled with a Go . . . metadata symbol (e.g., GoGreenNSEntry) that indicates the instruction is an allowed entry point for the go_ . . . function. Additionally, or alternatively, the last instruction of the go_ . . . function (e.g., go_green_NS) in the above illustrative application code may be labeled with a Go . . . metadata symbol (e.g., GoGreenNSExit) that indicates the instruction is an allowed exit point for the go_ . . . function. Additionally, or alternatively, one or more other instructions of the go . . . function (e.g., go_green_Ns) in the above illustrative application code may be labeled with a Go . . . metadata symbol (e.g., GoGreenNSInterior) that indicates the one or more instructions are inside the go_ . . . function.
In some embodiments, a rule may be provided that allows the first instruction of a go_ . . . function to execute, and updates an environment metadata variable to indicate entry into the go_ . . . function. An example of such a rule is provided below.
In some embodiments, a rule may be provided that allows the last instruction of the go_ . . . function to execute, and updates the environment metadata variable to indicate exit out of the go_ . . . function and a new color of a corresponding set of lights. An example of such a rule is provided below.
In some embodiments, a rule may be provided that allows an interior instruction of a go_ . . . function to execute. An example of such a rule is provided below.
In some embodiments, a rule may be provided that clears an environment metadata variable if an instruction labeled with GoGreenNSEntry, GoGreenNSExit, or GoGreenNSInterior is attempted that does not match a corresponding rule. In this manner, control flow integrity may be maintained. For instance, control flow may enter a function only at the first instruction of the function. Additionally, or alternatively, control flow may exit a function only at the last instruction of the function.
In the above codePlusDataLightPol policy example, policy enforcement hardware maintains metadata in two ways. For instance, a metadata label comprising the symbol NS may be stored in the environment metadata variable (env) to indicate that the north-south lights are not red, and a metadata label [NS, Green] (or [NS, Yellow]) may be associated with a memory location of the global variable ns_street to indicate that that the north-south lights are green (or yellow). The inventors have recognized and appreciated that the environment metadata variable (env) may be used to make state information about a first set of lights (e.g., the east-west lights) available to a rule (e.g., the first rule in the codePlusDataLightPol policy) that checks state changes of a second set of lights (e.g., the north-south lights). However, it should be appreciated that aspects of the present disclosure are not limited to maintaining metadata in both ways.
In some embodiments, an additional information flow integrity policy may be provided to ensure that data values are not modified as the data values flow through application code and/or a run time environment (e.g., C run time). Accordingly, in some embodiments, a policy may be used that labels application data with a metadata symbol (e.g., Const) to indicate that the data is not to change. The policy may include rules that only allow instructions that do not modify the data value, such as load, store, and move instructions. Examples of such rules are provided below.
In some embodiments, the first rule may indicate that if a source register of a store instruction is labeled with Const, then a target memory location of the store instruction may also be labeled with Const upon completion of the store instruction. In some embodiments, the second rule may indicate that if a source memory location of a load instruction is labeled with Const, then a target register of the load instruction may also be labeled with Const upon completion of the load instruction. In some embodiments, the third rule may indicate that if a source register (or memory location) of a move instruction is labeled with Const, then a target register (or memory location) of the move instruction may also be labeled with Const upon completion of the move instruction.
As discussed above in connection with
In some embodiments, a target description may be provided for the above illustrative application code for a traffic light controller. The target description may describe a set of entities corresponding, respectively, to the go . . . functions. Such entity descriptions may be used by the policy linker to generate an initialization specification. Examples of entity descriptions are provided below.
It should be appreciated that an initialization specification may be generated in any suitable manner. For instance, source code analysis may be combined with one or more other techniques to automatically generate the initialization specification.
It also should be appreciated that examples relating to a traffic light controller are provided solely for purposes of illustration. The techniques described herein may be used to enforce any suitable safety property, and/or other types of properties, in any suitable target system.
In some embodiments, a policy language may be used to describe an FSM that models expected behavior of a system. For instance, the FSM may indicate safe states of the system to be protected, and/or allowed transitions among safe states, under a selected safety policy. At run time, policy enforcement hardware may execute the FSM in parallel with application code, thereby checking whether the system is complying with the safety policy.
In some embodiments, the policy enforcement hardware may maintain metadata for registers, memory locations, and/or dynamic environment of the system. For instance, an environment metadata element may be used to hold a current state of the FSM. Additionally, or alternatively, state information of the FSM may be stored in a metadata tag associated with an application memory location.
In some embodiments, the policy enforcement hardware may associate one or more portions of application code with appropriate metadata. For instance, one or more instructions may be indicative of a transition point during execution of the application code, and the policy enforcement hardware may associate the one or more instructions with metadata corresponding to a transition in the FSM. However, it should be appreciated that aspects of the present disclosure are not limited to associating application code with metadata. In some embodiments, a transition in the FSM may be indicated by a metadata pattern on one or more storage locations (e.g., a memory location and/or a register) storing data manipulated by application code. For instance, the ninth rule of the illustrative codePlusDataLightPol policy above may be triggered if a store instruction is attempting to modify the global variable ns_street (but the store instruction does not match any of the first eight rules), without regard to what, if any, metadata is associated with the store instruction itself.
In the example of
If a matching rule is found in the rule cache, the enforcement hardware may determine, at act 510, that the instruction matches a transition of the FSM. The policy enforcement hardware may allow the instruction to proceed. Additionally, or alternatively, the policy enforcement hardware may, at act 515, perform one or more metadata updates according to the matching rule.
If there is no matching rule in the rule cache, but the policy processor indicates the instruction matches a rule of the policy, the enforcement hardware may also determine, at act 510, that the instruction matches a transition of the FSM. The policy enforcement hardware may install the matching rule returned by the policy processor into the rule cache for future reference.
If there is no matching rule in the rule cache, and the policy processor indicates the instruction does not match any rule of the policy, the enforcement hardware may determine, at act 510, that the instruction does not match any transition of the FSM. The policy enforcement hardware may proceed to act 520 to cause an appropriate violation handling routine to be executed. For instance, the policy enforcement hardware may generate an alert, block the instruction from executing, etc.
It should also be appreciated that the techniques disclosed herein may be implemented in any of numerous ways, as the disclosed techniques are not limited to any particular manner of implementation. Examples of details of implementation are provided solely for illustrative purposes. Furthermore, the disclosed techniques may be used individually or in any suitable combination, as aspects of the present disclosure are not limited to using any particular technique or combination of techniques.
For instance, policies (e.g., safety policies) may be created in one or more different ways. As one example, a policy may be coded directly in a policy language. As another example, a modeling tool for a certain application domain may be used to generate a policy. As another example, an FSM specification (e.g., in the form of a Unified Modeling Language, or UML, diagram) may be automatically translated into a policy.
Illustrative configurations of one or more aspects of the present disclosure are provided below.
Configuration 1. A system comprising enforcement hardware configured to: execute, at run time, a state machine in parallel with application code, comprising: maintaining metadata that corresponds to one or more state variables of the state machine; matching instructions in the application code to transitions in the state machine; and in response to determining that an instruction in the application code does not match any transition from a current state of the state machine, causing an error handling routine to be executed.
Configuration 2. The system of configuration 1, wherein: the state machine represents a safety property to be enforced while the application code is executed.
Configuration 3. The system of configuration 1, wherein executing the state machine in parallel with the application code further comprises: in response to determining that an instruction in the application code matches a transition from a current state of the state machine, performing a metadata update according to the match transition.
Configuration 4. The system of configuration 1, wherein causing an error handling routine to be executed comprises: generating an alert; and/or preventing the instruction from being executed.
Configuration 5. The system of configuration 1, wherein: the enforcement hardware comprises policy enforcement hardware configured to check run time behavior of the application against at least one policy; and the at least one policy comprising rules corresponding to transitions in the state machine.
Configuration 6. The system of configuration 5, wherein: the at least one policy comprises a safety policy; and the policy enforcement hardware is further configured to enforce a security policy, and/or is further configured to enforce a privacy policy.
Configuration 7. The system of configuration 6, wherein: the policy enforcement hardware is further configured to enforce the security policy; and the security policy comprises an information flow integrity policy.
Configuration 8. The system of configuration 1, wherein: maintaining metadata comprises associating metadata with an instruction in the application code; and the enforcement hardware is configured to match the instruction in the application code to a transition in the state machine based on the metadata associated with the instruction.
Configuration 9. The system of configuration 1, wherein: maintaining metadata comprises associating metadata with a storage location storing data manipulated by an instruction in the application code; and the enforcement hardware is configured to match the instruction in the application code to a transition in the state machine based on the metadata associated with the storage location.
Configuration 10. A system comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having encoded thereon instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method comprising: translating a description of a state machine into at least one policy to be enforced at run time based on metadata labels associated with application code and/or data manipulated by the application code.
Configuration 11. The system of configuration 10, wherein: the state machine represents a safety property to be enforced while the application code is executed.
Configuration 12. The system of configuration 10, wherein translating the description of the state machine comprises: assigning a metadata symbol to a value of a state variable of the state machine.
Configuration 13. The system of configuration 10, wherein translating the description of the state machine comprises: translating a transition of the state machine into a rule of the policy.
Configuration 14. A method performed by the system of any of the above configurations.
Configuration 15. At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having encoded thereon instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, perform the method of configuration 14.
Configuration 16. A system comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having encoded thereon instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method comprising translating a safety policy specification into rules to be enforced at runtime based on metadata labels of instructions and/or data manipulated by the instructions.
Configuration 17. The system of configuration 16, wherein the safety policy specification comprises a finite state machine specification.
Configuration 18. A system comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having encoded thereon instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method comprising enforcing at least one safety policy at runtime based on metadata labels of instructions and/or data manipulated by the instructions.
Configuration 19. The system of configuration 18, wherein the at least one safety policy is enforced along with at least one security policy.
Configuration 20. The system of configuration 19, wherein the least one security policy comprises an information flow integrity policy.
Configuration 21. The system of configuration 18, wherein the at least one safety policy is enforced along with at least one privacy policy.
In the embodiment shown in
The computer 1100 may have one or more input devices and/or output devices, such as devices 1106 and 1107 illustrated in
In the example shown in
Having thus described several aspects of at least one embodiment, it is to be appreciated that various alterations, modifications, and improvements will readily occur to those skilled in the art. Such alterations, modifications, and improvements are intended to be within the spirit and scope of the present disclosure. Accordingly, the foregoing descriptions and drawings are by way of example only.
The above-described embodiments of the present disclosure can be implemented in any of numerous ways. For example, the embodiments may be implemented using hardware, software, or a combination thereof. When implemented in software, the software code may be executed on any suitable processor or collection of processors, whether provided in a single computer, or distributed among multiple computers.
Also, the various methods or processes outlined herein may be coded as software that is executable on one or more processors running any one of a variety of operating systems or platforms. Such software may be written using any of a number of suitable programming languages and/or programming tools, including scripting languages and/or scripting tools. In some instances, such software may be compiled as executable machine language code or intermediate code that is executed on a framework or virtual machine. Additionally, or alternatively, such software may be interpreted.
The techniques disclosed herein may be embodied as a non-transitory computer-readable medium (or multiple computer-readable media) (e.g., a computer memory, one or more floppy discs, compact discs, optical discs, magnetic tapes, flash memories, circuit configurations in Field Programmable Gate Arrays or other semiconductor devices, or other non-transitory, tangible computer storage medium) encoded with one or more programs that, when executed on one or more processors, perform methods that implement the various embodiments of the present disclosure discussed above. The computer-readable medium or media may be transportable, such that the program or programs stored thereon may be loaded onto one or more different computers or other processors to implement various aspects of the present disclosure as discussed above.
The terms “program” or “software” are used herein to refer to any type of computer code or set of computer-executable instructions that may be employed to program one or more processors to implement various aspects of the present disclosure as discussed above. Moreover, it should be appreciated that according to one aspect of this embodiment, one or more computer programs that, when executed, perform methods of the present disclosure need not reside on a single computer or processor, but may be distributed in a modular fashion amongst a number of different computers or processors to implement various aspects of the present disclosure.
Computer-executable instructions may be in many forms, such as program modules, executed by one or more computers or other devices. Program modules may include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc. that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. Functionalities of the program modules may be combined or distributed as desired in various embodiments.
Also, data structures may be stored in computer-readable media in any suitable form. For simplicity of illustration, data structures may be shown to have fields that are related through location in the data structure. Such relationships may likewise be achieved by assigning storage for the fields to locations in a computer-readable medium that convey relationship between the fields. However, any suitable mechanism may be used to establish a relationship between information in fields of a data structure, including through the use of pointers, tags, or other mechanisms that establish relationship between data elements.
Various features and aspects of the present disclosure may be used alone, in any combination of two or more, or in a variety of arrangements not specifically discussed in the embodiments described in the foregoing, and are therefore not limited to the details and arrangement of components set forth in the foregoing description or illustrated in the drawings. For example, aspects described in one embodiment may be combined in any manner with aspects described in other embodiments.
Also, the techniques disclosed herein may be embodied as methods, of which examples have been provided. The acts performed as part of a method may be ordered in any suitable way. Accordingly, embodiments may be constructed in which acts are performed in an order different from illustrated, which may include performing some acts simultaneously, even though shown as sequential acts in illustrative embodiments.
Use of ordinal terms such as “first,” “second,” “third,” etc., in the claims to modify a claim element does not by itself connote any priority, precedence, or order of one claim element over another or the temporal order in which acts of a method are performed, but are used merely as labels to distinguish one claim element having a certain name from another element having a same name (but for use of the ordinal term) to distinguish the claim elements.
Also, the phraseology and terminology used herein is for the purpose of description and should not be regarded as limiting. The use of “including,” “comprising,” “having,” “containing,” “involving,” and variations thereof herein, is meant to encompass the items listed thereafter and equivalents thereof as well as additional items.
This application is a national stage filing under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of International Patent Application Serial No. PCT/US2019/029880, filed Apr. 30, 2019, which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/664,554 filed on Apr. 30, 2018, titled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CHECKING SAFETY PROPERTIES,” the contents of these applications are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. This application may include subject matter related to that of International Patent Application No. PCT/US2019/016272, filed on Feb. 1, 2019, titled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR POLICY LINKING AND/OR LOADING FOR SECURE INITIALIZATION,” which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/US2019/029880 | 4/30/2019 | WO |
| Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| WO2019/213061 | 11/7/2019 | WO | A |
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5201056 | Daniel et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
| 5377336 | Eickemeyer et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5488730 | Brown, III et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5521910 | Matthews | May 1996 | A |
| 5559952 | Fujimoto | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5655100 | Ebrahim et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5664197 | Kardach et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5664223 | Bender et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5684977 | Van Loo et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5764946 | Tran et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5778423 | Sites et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5848433 | Tran et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5890008 | Panwar et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5941981 | Tran | Aug 1999 | A |
| 6014734 | Tran et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6035374 | Panwar et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6058466 | Panwar et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6240502 | Panwar et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6269436 | Tran et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6298432 | Goto | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6321297 | Shamanna et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6324599 | Zhou et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6351784 | Neal et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6438673 | Jourdan et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6449714 | Sinharoy | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6549903 | Babaian et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6549959 | Yates et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6622182 | Miller et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6625146 | Merchant et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6636523 | Lau et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6748589 | Johnson et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6922740 | Kondratiev et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
| 6976147 | Isaac et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
| 7047394 | Van Dyke et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7058918 | Abramovici et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7095783 | Sotheran et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7137086 | Abramovici | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7146548 | Abramovici | Dec 2006 | B1 |
| 7213247 | Wilner et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
| 7263572 | Hiji | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7296201 | Abramovici | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7301541 | Hansen et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7305635 | Abramovici et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
| 7313820 | Kilroy | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7340469 | Alghathbar et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
| 7348796 | Crouch et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
| 7426705 | Kolaric | Sep 2008 | B1 |
| 7430650 | Ross | Sep 2008 | B1 |
| 7434002 | Zedlewski et al. | Oct 2008 | B1 |
| 7467414 | Schlesinger | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7487264 | Pandya | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7493247 | Memmi | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7493434 | Abramovici | Feb 2009 | B1 |
| 7574536 | Johnsen et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7580914 | Wang et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7581064 | Zedlewski et al. | Aug 2009 | B1 |
| 7631107 | Pandya | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7688838 | Aloni et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
| 7698402 | Santos et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7813342 | Gadelrab | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7886148 | Kiriansky et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 8074052 | Iadonato et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8121828 | Yates, Jr. et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8127121 | Yates, Jr. et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8131663 | Taylor | Mar 2012 | B1 |
| 8131762 | Smetters et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8166404 | Grinstein | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8181219 | Golan et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8271447 | Natanzon et al. | Sep 2012 | B1 |
| 8326774 | Candelore | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8335754 | Dawson et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8346760 | Wang et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8364910 | Wilkerson et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8380933 | Uchiyama | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8423720 | Döring | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8516193 | Clinton et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
| 8543606 | Pulfer et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8572410 | Tkacik et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
| 8677457 | Fullerton | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8701200 | Naldurg et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
| 8738860 | Griffin et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
| 8756185 | Dawson et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
| 8788792 | Yates, Jr. et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 8826391 | Tkacik et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 8843734 | Lim | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 8904477 | Barton et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 8874850 | Goodson et al. | Oct 2014 | B1 |
| 8875170 | Daniel | Oct 2014 | B1 |
| 8887230 | Barton et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
| 8938783 | Becker et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
| 9026733 | Clinton et al. | May 2015 | B1 |
| 9047178 | Talagala et al. | Jun 2015 | B2 |
| 9087200 | McKeen et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
| 9165078 | Bester et al. | Oct 2015 | B2 |
| 9208082 | Cheriton et al. | Dec 2015 | B1 |
| 9219752 | Balinksy et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9251052 | Talagala et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
| 9311093 | Gschwind et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
| 9317708 | Lee et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
| 9323684 | Koker et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
| 9467474 | Barton et al. | Oct 2016 | B2 |
| 9507589 | Rao et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9507598 | Bonnano et al. | Nov 2016 | B1 |
| 9513884 | Bates et al. | Dec 2016 | B2 |
| 9525606 | Staggs et al. | Dec 2016 | B1 |
| 9571509 | Satish et al. | Feb 2017 | B1 |
| 9576147 | McClintock et al. | Feb 2017 | B1 |
| 9665603 | Bester et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
| 9680736 | Kamboh | Jun 2017 | B2 |
| 9680738 | Jackson et al. | Jun 2017 | B2 |
| 9703956 | Watson et al. | Jul 2017 | B1 |
| 9736185 | Belamaric et al. | Aug 2017 | B1 |
| 9785440 | DeHon | Oct 2017 | B2 |
| 9792472 | Robshaw et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
| 9906557 | Hsiung et al. | Feb 2018 | B2 |
| 9953095 | Scott et al. | Apr 2018 | B1 |
| 9967272 | Khanna | May 2018 | B1 |
| 10073977 | Pappachan et al. | Sep 2018 | B2 |
| 10078763 | Chiricescu et al. | Sep 2018 | B2 |
| 10114958 | Sell | Oct 2018 | B2 |
| 10133866 | Kumar et al. | Nov 2018 | B1 |
| 10152330 | Chiricescu et al. | Dec 2018 | B2 |
| 10235176 | DeHon et al. | Mar 2019 | B2 |
| 10261794 | DeHon | Apr 2019 | B2 |
| 10424043 | Koston et al. | Sep 2019 | B1 |
| 10503904 | Singh et al. | Dec 2019 | B1 |
| 10521230 | DeHon | Dec 2019 | B2 |
| 10545760 | DeHon | Jan 2020 | B2 |
| 10642616 | DeHon et al. | May 2020 | B2 |
| 10642753 | Steinberg | May 2020 | B1 |
| 10719630 | Chiricescu et al. | Jul 2020 | B2 |
| 10725778 | DeHon et al. | Jul 2020 | B2 |
| 10754650 | DeHon et al. | Aug 2020 | B2 |
| 10936713 | DeHon et al. | Mar 2021 | B2 |
| 11150910 | Milburn et al. | Oct 2021 | B2 |
| 11182162 | DeHon et al. | Nov 2021 | B2 |
| 11340902 | DeHon | May 2022 | B2 |
| 11417109 | Theimer et al. | Aug 2022 | B1 |
| 11507373 | Dehon et al. | Nov 2022 | B2 |
| 11556664 | Levy et al. | Jan 2023 | B2 |
| 20020083298 | Cook et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020087795 | Hum et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020124156 | Yoaz et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20030014466 | Berger et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030023783 | Arimilli et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030058889 | Lansing et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030120892 | Hum et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030145235 | Choo | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030149895 | Choo et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030172109 | Dalton et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030196108 | Kung | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20040015845 | Hickman | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040117599 | Mittal et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133777 | Kiriansky et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040236876 | Kondratiev et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040255267 | Meijer | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050055565 | Fournet et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050108518 | Pandya | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050149521 | Wang et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050149719 | Kilroy | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050154838 | DeWitt et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050182667 | Metzger et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20060004548 | Santos et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060059567 | Bird et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060080489 | Hiji | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060080553 | Hall | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060090084 | Buer | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060112261 | Yourst et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060143689 | Yu et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060242332 | Johnsen et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060277392 | Bittner, Jr. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070006294 | Hunter | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070050586 | Shin et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070226365 | Hildreth et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070239861 | Reeves et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070261033 | Chen et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070279264 | Nakagawa | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080010233 | Sack et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080016547 | Anderson et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080028196 | Kailas | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080052488 | Fritz et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080066160 | Becker et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080083298 | Lin | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080126841 | Benhanokh et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080140737 | Garst et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080168529 | Anderson et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080201333 | Rowley | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080216073 | Yates et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080216102 | Quinn | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080222397 | Wilkerson et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080240111 | Gadelrab | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080244232 | Sherman et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080248599 | Jaiswal et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080250216 | Kershaw et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080282040 | Doring | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080282093 | Hatakeyama | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080288941 | Adams et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080301256 | McWilliams et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20080301471 | Demarest et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20080320235 | Beckmann et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090006519 | Nandan et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090063951 | Rjaibi et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090097815 | Lahr et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090113110 | Chen et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090113132 | Cain, III et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090113135 | Cain et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090144388 | Gross et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090164705 | Gorobets | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090164766 | Suggs et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090165078 | Samudrala et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090178102 | Alghathbar et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090204785 | Yates, Jr. et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090241097 | Wang et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090254543 | Ber et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090254572 | Redlich et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20100011209 | Kiriansky et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100011446 | Klucher et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100022869 | Kimura | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100049974 | Winjum et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100138613 | Parker | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100154026 | Chatterjee et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100169382 | Sheaffer et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100191922 | Dickey et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100228693 | Dawson et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100235580 | Bouvier | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100250729 | Morris | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100332716 | Sheaffer et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110016295 | Catherwood et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110078389 | Patel et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110099336 | Yasufuku et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110126265 | Fullerton | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110161623 | Eichenberger et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110219424 | Panasyuk et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110238805 | Signori | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20120036507 | Jonnala et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120079458 | Williams et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120117610 | Pandya | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120144167 | Yates, Jr. et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120151184 | Wilkerson et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120180031 | Eichenberger et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120203970 | Biran et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120210066 | Joshi et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120210068 | Joshi et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120233212 | Newton et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120236756 | Bennett et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120297057 | Ghosh et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20130006993 | Kobayashi | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130010779 | Fischer et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130016075 | Kim et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130047142 | Bates et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130067593 | Candelore | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130081134 | Glew et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130097369 | Talagala et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130097421 | Lim | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130097667 | Pulfer et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130138892 | Loh et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130159726 | McKeen et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130160075 | Schlesinger et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130160775 | Curnow | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130185475 | Talagala et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130185488 | Talagala et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130212321 | Talagala et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130227218 | Chang et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130254838 | Ahuja et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130275656 | Talagala et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130283017 | Wilkerson et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130290607 | Chang et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130326117 | Aune | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140006804 | Tkacik et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140019385 | Dawson et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140047181 | Peterson et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140047183 | Chawla et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140101396 | Bonanno et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140140342 | Narad | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140173211 | Loh et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140223445 | Beckmann et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140280248 | Bester et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140281192 | Gilda et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140282832 | Chanoch et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140283040 | Wilkerson et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140283107 | Walton et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20150012689 | Atkisson et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150046658 | Wilson | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150058997 | Lee et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150089186 | Kim et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150092778 | Jackson et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150120699 | Faerber et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150149673 | Balkan et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150205535 | Joshi et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150220453 | Heisswolf et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150249668 | Reddy et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150278311 | Isherwood et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150339062 | Toyoda et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150339329 | Bester et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150378780 | Busaba et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150381660 | Hsiung et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160048551 | Baldwin et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160062803 | Beckmann et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160077816 | Eilam et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160092702 | Durham et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160132536 | Lee | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160140363 | Chiricescu et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160154833 | Isherwood, Jr. et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160170769 | LeMay | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160182408 | Jani et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160188891 | Schlesinger et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160196432 | Main et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
| 20160239223 | Joshi et al. | Aug 2016 | A9 |
| 20160274810 | Godard et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160335187 | Greenspan et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160350019 | Koufaty et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160350230 | Murphy | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160366102 | Smith | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160371496 | Sell | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20170024568 | Pappachan et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170031708 | Chen et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170048249 | Berrangé | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170061160 | Simonov et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170083338 | Burger et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170091107 | Peterson et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170126687 | Martinelli | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170126738 | Wilkerson et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170177367 | DeHon | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170177368 | DeHon et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170192986 | Isherwood et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
| 20170220806 | Munoz et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170235840 | Bester et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170286119 | Al Sheikh et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
| 20170286151 | Landers et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
| 20170293563 | DeHon et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
| 20170308480 | Wilson | Oct 2017 | A1 |
| 20170329961 | Shanbhogue et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20180011708 | DeHon | Jan 2018 | A1 |
| 20180046579 | Greenspan et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
| 20180082055 | Fleming et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180121650 | Brown | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180143890 | Ogawa et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180189062 | Baghsorkhi et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
| 20180276085 | Mitkar et al. | Sep 2018 | A1 |
| 20180302443 | Weiss et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
| 20180336031 | DeHon et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180336032 | DeHon et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180336033 | DeHon | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180341490 | DeHon | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20190034665 | Chiricescu et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
| 20190141059 | Shimizu | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190155606 | Rotem et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190171457 | DeHon et al. | Jun 2019 | A1 |
| 20190205244 | Smith | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190213322 | DeHon et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190236272 | Piatt | Aug 2019 | A1 |
| 20190243655 | Milburn et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
| 20190243768 | Doshi et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
| 20190354675 | Gan et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
| 20190384604 | DeHon et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
| 20190392146 | Gezalov et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
| 20190392147 | Gezalov et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
| 20200089500 | DeHon | Mar 2020 | A1 |
| 20200125502 | Durham et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
| 20200201576 | Yudanov et al. | Jun 2020 | A1 |
| 20200387374 | DeHon | Dec 2020 | A1 |
| 20200387384 | Huang | Dec 2020 | A1 |
| 20210004231 | DeHon | Jan 2021 | A1 |
| 20210026934 | Boling et al. | Jan 2021 | A1 |
| 20210042100 | Boling et al. | Feb 2021 | A1 |
| 20210055954 | Milburn et al. | Feb 2021 | A1 |
| 20210073375 | Milburn et al. | Mar 2021 | A1 |
| 20210075797 | Gan et al. | Mar 2021 | A1 |
| 20210255890 | Milburn et al. | Aug 2021 | A1 |
| 20210406028 | Boling et al. | Dec 2021 | A1 |
| 20220012329 | Boling et al. | Jan 2022 | A1 |
| 20220043654 | DeHon et al. | Feb 2022 | A1 |
| 20220050904 | Sullivan et al. | Feb 2022 | A1 |
| 20220092173 | Sutherland et al. | Mar 2022 | A1 |
| 20220129343 | Milburn et al. | Apr 2022 | A1 |
| 20220198014 | Boling et al. | Jun 2022 | A1 |
| 20220300583 | Boling et al. | Sep 2022 | A1 |
| 20220309134 | Boling et al. | Sep 2022 | A1 |
| 20220374415 | Boling et al. | Nov 2022 | A1 |
| 20220398312 | Sutherland et al. | Dec 2022 | A1 |
| 20230054942 | Milburn et al. | Feb 2023 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 101558388 | Oct 2009 | CN |
| 102160033 | Aug 2011 | CN |
| 103282889 | Sep 2013 | CN |
| 104657500 | May 2015 | CN |
| 104794067 | Jul 2015 | CN |
| 2519608 | Apr 2015 | GB |
| 2013-242633 | Dec 2013 | JP |
| 201333722 | Aug 2013 | TW |
| 201729068 | Aug 2017 | TW |
| 201737675 | Oct 2017 | TW |
| WO 9203779 | Mar 1992 | WO |
| WO 2010028316 | Mar 2010 | WO |
| WO 2015047295 | Apr 2015 | WO |
| WO 2015183481 | Dec 2015 | WO |
| WO 2017106101 | Jun 2017 | WO |
| WO 2017106103 | Jun 2017 | WO |
| WO 2017221373 | Dec 2017 | WO |
| WO 2019152772 | Aug 2019 | WO |
| WO 2019152792 | Aug 2019 | WO |
| WO 2019152795 | Aug 2019 | WO |
| WO 2019152805 | Aug 2019 | WO |
| WO 2019152822 | Aug 2019 | WO |
| WO 2019213061 | Nov 2019 | WO |
| WO 2020097177 | May 2020 | WO |
| WO 2020097179 | May 2020 | WO |
| WO 2020102064 | May 2020 | WO |
| WO 2020132012 | Jun 2020 | WO |
| WO 2020150351 | Jul 2020 | WO |
| WO 2021076871 | Apr 2021 | WO |
| WO 2021092138 | May 2021 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/966,616, filed Jul. 31, 2020, Boling et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/711,092, filed Apr. 1, 2022, Boling et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/966,863, filed Jul. 31, 2020, Milburn et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/966,865, filed Jul. 31, 2020, Milburn et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/774,799, filed May 5, 2022, Sutherland et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/507,398, filed Oct. 21, 2021, Milburn et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/292,694, filed May 10, 2021, Boling et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/312,675, filed Jun. 10, 2021, Sullivan et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/423,701, filed Jul. 16, 2021, Sutherland et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/966,866, filed Jul. 31, 2020, Boling et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/720,035, filed Apr. 13, 2022, Boling et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/560,975, filed Dec. 23, 2021, Boling et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/769,868, filed Apr. 18, 2022, Boling et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/308,868, filed May 5, 2021, Milburn et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/168,689, filed May 31, 2016, DeHon et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/426,098, filed Feb. 7, 2017, DeHon. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/624,878, filed Jun. 16, 2017, DeHon et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/695,541, filed Sep. 5, 2017, DeHon. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/002,642, filed Jun. 7, 2018, DeHon et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/002,757, filed Jun. 7, 2018, DeHon et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/002,957, filed Jun. 7, 2018, DeHon. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/002,987, filed Jun. 7, 2018, DeHon. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/062,791, filed Jun. 15, 2018, DeHon et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/256,640, filed Jan. 24, 2019, DeHon et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/684,172, filed Nov. 14, 2019, DeHon. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/905,680, filed Jun. 18, 2020, DeHon. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/929,692, filed Jul. 15, 2020, DeHon. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/062,796, filed Jun. 15, 2018, DeHon et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/264,773, filed Feb. 1, 2019, Milburn et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/474,830, filed Sep. 14, 2021, Milburn et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/452,271, filed Oct. 26, 2021, DeHon. |
| PCT/US2019/016272, Apr. 8, 2019, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2019/016272, Aug. 13, 2020, International Preliminary Report on Patentability. |
| PCT/US2019/016276, Apr. 26, 2019, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2019/016276, Aug. 13, 2020, International Preliminary Report on Patentability. |
| PCT/US2019/029880, Aug. 8, 2019, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2019/029880, Nov. 12, 2020, International Preliminary Report on Patentability. |
| PCT/US2019/016317, Apr. 16, 2019, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2019/016317, Aug. 13, 2020, International Preliminary Report on Patentability. |
| PCT/US2020/059057, Feb. 8, 2021, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2016/066188, Jul. 13, 2017, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2016/066194, Apr. 7, 2017, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2019/016242, Mar. 29, 2019, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2019/060030, May 20, 5021, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2019/060698, May 20, 2021, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2019/067084, Jul. 2, 2021, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2019/013678, Apr. 15, 2020, Invitation to Pay Additional Fees. |
| PCT/US2019/013678, Jul. 29, 2021, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2019/016295, May 3, 2019, Invitation to Pay Additional Fees. |
| PCT/US2019/016295, Jun. 26, 2019, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2019/016295, Aug. 13, 2020, International Preliminary Report on Patentability. |
| PCT/US2021/020602, May 11, 2021, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2020/055952, Jan. 28, 2021, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2020/055952, Apr. 28, 2021, International Preliminary Report on Patentability. |
| PCT/US2019/060028, Mar. 23, 2020, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| PCT/US2019/060028, May 20, 2021, International Preliminary Report on Patentability. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/016242 dated Mar. 29, 2019. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2016/066194 dated Apr. 7, 2017. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2016/066188 dated Jul. 13, 2017. |
| Invitation to Pay Additional Fees for International Application No. PCT/US2019/016295 dated May 3, 2019. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/016295 dated Jun. 26, 2019. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2019/016295 dated Aug. 13, 2020. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/016276 dated Apr. 26, 2019. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/029880 dated Aug. 8, 2019. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/016317 dated Apr. 16, 2019. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2020/059057 dated Feb. 8, 2021. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/060030 dated May 20, 2021. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/060698 dated May 20, 2021. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/067084 dated Jul. 1, 2021. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/013678 dated Jul. 29, 2021. |
| Invitation to Pay Additional Fees for International Application No. PCT/US2019/013678 dated Apr. 15, 2020. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2021/020602 dated May 11, 2021. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2020/055952 dated Jan. 28, 2021. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2019/060028 dated May 20, 2021. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/060028 dated Mar. 23, 2020. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/016272 dated Apr. 8, 2019. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2019/016272 dated Aug. 13, 2020. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2019/016276 dated Aug. 13, 2020. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2019/029880 dated Nov. 12, 2020. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2019/016317 dated Aug. 13, 2020. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2020/055952 dated Aug. 13, 2020. |
| [No Author Listed], Arm Limited: AMBA® AXI™ and ACE™ Protocol Specification. Oct. 28, 2011:1-306. [https://capocaccia.ethz.ch/capo/raw-attachment/wiki/2014/microblaze14/AX14_specification.pdf.]. |
| Alves-Foss et al., Evaluating the Use of Security Tags in Security Policy Enforcement Mechanisms. 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Jan. 5, 2015:5201-10. |
| Berlekamp, Algebraic coding theory (revised edition). World Scientific; Mar. 26, 2015. 34 pages. |
| Calder et al., Process Algebra for Event-Driven Runtime Verification: A Case Study of Wireless Network Management. IFM LNCS 2012;21-23. |
| Dalton et al., Raksha: a flexible information flow architecture for software security. ACM Proceedings of the 34th Annual International Symposium in Computer Architecture. Jun. 9, 2007;35(2):482-93. |
| Dalton et al., Real-World Buffer Overflow Protection for Userspace and Kernelspace. USENIX Security Symposium Jul. 28, 2008;395-410. |
| De Amorim et al., A verified information-flow architecture. Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages Jan. 8, 2014:165-78. |
| De Amorim et al., Micro-policies: Formally verified, tag-based security monitors. 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy May 17, 2015:813-30. |
| Dehon et al., DOVER A Metadata-Extended RISC-V. Jan. 6, 2016:34. [https://web.archive.org/web/20160331131339 if /http://riscv.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/01/Wed1430-dover riscv jan2016 v3.pdf]. |
| Dehon et al., DOVER: A metadata-extended RISC-V. RISC-V Workshop Oracle Conference Center, Redwood Shores, CA. Jan. 6, 2016. 33 pages. |
| Dhawan et al., Architectural support for software-defined metadata processing. Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS). Mar. 14, 2015:487-502. |
| Dhawan et al., Area-efficient near-associative memories on FPGAs. ACM Transactions on Reconfigurable Technology and Systems (TRETS). Jan. 23, 2015;7(4):1-22. |
| Dhawan et al., PUMP: a programmable unit for metadata processing. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Hardware and Architectural Support for Security and Privacy (HASP). Jun. 15, 2014:1-8. |
| Engelke et al., Efficient LLVM-Based Dynamic Binary Translation. ACM VEE. Apr. 16, 2021;165-71. |
| Evans et al., Melding security metadata between software and hardware. Proceedings of the Posters and Demo Track Dec. 3, 2012:1-2. |
| Geater, Tee requirements for ISA. Thales eSecurity. 2018. 21 pages. |
| Hriţcu, Micro-policies: Formally verified, tag-based security monitors. Proceedings of the 10th ACM Workshop on Programming Languages and Analysis for Security Jul. 4, 2015. |
| Hunt et al., The Seven Properties of Highly Secure Devices. 2021. 10 pages. |
| Juglaret et al., Towards a fully abstract compiler using Micro-Policies: Secure compilation for mutually distrustful components. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.00697. Oct. 2, 2015. 31 pages. |
| Kane, Runtime Monitoring for Safety-Critical Embedded Systems. Carnegie Mellon University. Feb. 2015;207 pages. |
| Kannan et al., Decoupling dynamic information flow tracking with a dedicated coprocessor. 2009 IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems & Networks. Jun. 29, 2009:105-14. |
| Mambretti et al., Trellis: Privilege separation for multi-user applications made easy. International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions, and Defenses. Springer, Cham. Sep. 19, 2016:437-56. |
| Nagarakatte et al., SoftBound: Highly Compatible and Complete Spatial Memory Safety for C. University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer and Information Science Technical Report. Jan. 2009. 12 pages. |
| Okhravi et al., One Giant Leap for Computer Security. IEEE Computer and Reliability Societies. Jul./Aug. 2020;18(4):8-19. |
| Ozsoy et al., SIFT: A low-overhead dynamic information flow tracking architecture for smt processors. Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers. May 3, 2011:1-11. |
| Roessler et al., Protecting the stack with metadata policies and tagged hardware. 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) May 20, 2018;478-95. |
| Song et al., Security tagging for a zero-kernel operating system. 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Jan. 7, 2013:5049-58. |
| Song et al., The 4th lowRISC Release: Tagged Memory and Minion Core. University of Cambridge. May 2017. 20 pages. https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Wed0930riscv201705_ppt.pdf [Last accessed Mar. 31, 2022]. |
| Suh et al., Secure Program Execution via Dynamic Information Flow Tracking. MIT CSAIL. Jul. 2003. 14 pages. |
| Sullivan et al., The dover inherently secure processor. 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST) Apr. 25, 2017:1-5. |
| Tiwari et al., A small cache of large ranges: Hardware methods for efficiently searching, storing, and updating big dataflow tags. 2008 41st IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture Nov. 8, 2008:94-105. |
| Tiwari et al., Complete information flow tracking from the gates up. InProceedings of the 14th international conference on Architectural support for programming languages and operating systems Mar. 7, 2009;109-20. |
| Waterman et al., The RISC-V Instruction Set Manual, vol. I: Unprivileged ISA, Document Version Dec. 13, 2019. RISC-V Foundation. Dec. 2019. 238 pages. |
| Watson et al., Cheri: A hybrid capability-system architecture for scalable software compartmentalization. 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy Sep. 2015;20-37. |
| Witchel et al., Mondrian Memory Protection. ASPLOS-X. 2002;13 pages. |
| Woodruff, Cheri: A RISC capability machine for practical memory safety. University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory; 2014. 112 pages. |
| Zeldovich et al., Hardware Enforcement of Application Security Policies Using Tagged Memory. USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. Dec. 8, 2008:8;225-40. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/880,539, filed Aug. 3, 2022, Milburn et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/908,879, filed Sep. 1, 2022, Milburn et al. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2020/059057, dated May 19, 2022. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/060030 dated Mar. 19, 2020. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/060698 dated Feb. 3, 2020. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/067084 dated Mar. 19, 2020. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2019/013678 dated Jun. 23, 2020. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2021/020602, dated Sep. 15, 2022. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2020/055952 dated Apr. 28, 2022. |
| Mutlu, 18-447 Computer Architecture Lecture 11: Precise Exceptions, State Maintenance, State Recovery. Carnegie Mellon University Lecture. Feb. 11, 2015, 49 pages. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2022/042492 dated Jan. 11, 2023. |
| PCT/US2022/042492, Jan. 11, 2023, International Search Report and Written Opinion. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20210406137 A1 | Dec 2021 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62664554 | Apr 2018 | US |
