That's a very scary, albeit contrived, example. I wonder if there are more realistic functions that are susceptible to this attack from "safe" Haskell. In light of your exploit, I'm leaning toward saying we probably *should* fix this, but I'd like to hear your opinion. On Sun, Jul 8, 2018, 6:51 PM Arseniy Alekseyev wrote:

This might be just me expecting too much guarantees from ST monad, but it seems to me that this is a potential violation of memory-safety. Consider the program below.

The use of [unsafeWrite] in [silly_function] is guarded by the code above (we know we wrote [sz] so we should read back [sz]). It ought to be safe if you can rely on sequential execution of ST monad with no preemption. However, it does end up preempted due to the use of [mfix] elsewhere in the program, which leads to a segmentation fault.

import Data.Array.ST import Data.Array.Base import Control.Monad.ST.Strict import Control.Monad.Fix

silly_function :: STArray s Int Int -> Int -> ST s () silly_function arr a = do (0, sz) <- getBounds arr writeArray arr 0 sz let !res = a sz <- readArray arr 0 unsafeWrite arr sz res

foo :: ST s Int foo = do arr <- newArray (0, 10) 0 mfix $ \res -> do n <- readArray arr 0 writeArray arr 0 1000000000 if n > 0 then return 666 else do silly_function arr res readArray arr 10

main = print $ runST foo

On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 at 22:26, Levent Erkok wrote:

...

Hi David,

Wonderful example. I'm afraid no-eager-blackholing also breaks the "no spooky action at a distance" rule. Since `x` is not used recursively, we should be able to pull it out of the `mfix` call, transforming the original to:

foo :: ST s Int foo = do ref <- newSTRef True x <- readSTRef ref mfix $ \res -> do if x then do writeSTRef ref False return $! res + 5 -- force the final result else return 10

I believe this variant will produce <<loop>> with or without eager-blackholing, as it should. By this argument alone, I'd say the no-eager-blackholing breaks mfix axioms for strict-state.

This example is also interesting from a pure termination point of view: Moving things "out-of" mfix usually improves termination. In this case, the opposite is happening.

Strictly speaking, this is in violation of the mfix-axioms. But I doubt it's worth losing sleep over. I suggest we add this as an example in the value-recursion section on how eager-blackholing can change things.

Cheers,

-Levent.

On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 9:40 AM, David Feuer wrote:

...

I filed a ticket[*] for this, but I think maybe the libraries list should weigh in on whether it is something that should be fixed. In general, fixST f is supposed to bottom out if f forces its argument. However, the lazy way GHC blackholes thunks under evaluation sometimes leads to the computation being run again. In certain contrived situations, this can allow the computation to succeed!

The example I give in the ticket:

import Control.Monad.ST.Strict import Control.Monad.Fix import Data.STRef

foo :: ST s Int foo = do ref <- newSTRef True mfix $ \res -> do x <- readSTRef ref if x then do writeSTRef ref False return $! res + 5 -- force the final result else return 10

main = print $ runST foo

Here, the computation writes to an STRef before forcing the final result. Forcing the final result causes the computation to run again, this time taking the other branch. The program prints 15. When compiled with -O -feager-blackholing, however, the expected <<loop>> exception occurs.

As far as I know, this weirdness never changes the value produced by a non-bottoming computation, and never changes a non-bottoming computation into a bottoming one. The fix (defining fixST the way fixIO is currently defined) would have a slight performance impact. Is it worth it?

[*] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/15349

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

Arseniy's example definitely leaves me inclined to say we should fix rather than just document this. -Edward On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 6:51 PM Arseniy Alekseyev < arseniy.alekseyev@gmail.com> wrote:

This might be just me expecting too much guarantees from ST monad, but it seems to me that this is a potential violation of memory-safety. Consider the program below.

The use of [unsafeWrite] in [silly_function] is guarded by the code above (we know we wrote [sz] so we should read back [sz]). It ought to be safe if you can rely on sequential execution of ST monad with no preemption. However, it does end up preempted due to the use of [mfix] elsewhere in the program, which leads to a segmentation fault.

import Data.Array.ST import Data.Array.Base import Control.Monad.ST.Strict import Control.Monad.Fix

silly_function :: STArray s Int Int -> Int -> ST s () silly_function arr a = do (0, sz) <- getBounds arr writeArray arr 0 sz let !res = a sz <- readArray arr 0 unsafeWrite arr sz res

foo :: ST s Int foo = do arr <- newArray (0, 10) 0 mfix $ \res -> do n <- readArray arr 0 writeArray arr 0 1000000000 if n > 0 then return 666 else do silly_function arr res readArray arr 10

main = print $ runST foo

On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 at 22:26, Levent Erkok wrote:

...

Hi David,

Wonderful example. I'm afraid no-eager-blackholing also breaks the "no spooky action at a distance" rule. Since `x` is not used recursively, we should be able to pull it out of the `mfix` call, transforming the original to:

foo :: ST s Int foo = do ref <- newSTRef True x <- readSTRef ref mfix $ \res -> do if x then do writeSTRef ref False return $! res + 5 -- force the final result else return 10

I believe this variant will produce <<loop>> with or without eager-blackholing, as it should. By this argument alone, I'd say the no-eager-blackholing breaks mfix axioms for strict-state.

This example is also interesting from a pure termination point of view: Moving things "out-of" mfix usually improves termination. In this case, the opposite is happening.

Strictly speaking, this is in violation of the mfix-axioms. But I doubt it's worth losing sleep over. I suggest we add this as an example in the value-recursion section on how eager-blackholing can change things.

Cheers,

-Levent.

On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 9:40 AM, David Feuer wrote:

...

I filed a ticket[*] for this, but I think maybe the libraries list should weigh in on whether it is something that should be fixed. In general, fixST f is supposed to bottom out if f forces its argument. However, the lazy way GHC blackholes thunks under evaluation sometimes leads to the computation being run again. In certain contrived situations, this can allow the computation to succeed!

The example I give in the ticket:

import Control.Monad.ST.Strict import Control.Monad.Fix import Data.STRef

foo :: ST s Int foo = do ref <- newSTRef True mfix $ \res -> do x <- readSTRef ref if x then do writeSTRef ref False return $! res + 5 -- force the final result else return 10

main = print $ runST foo

Here, the computation writes to an STRef before forcing the final result. Forcing the final result causes the computation to run again, this time taking the other branch. The program prints 15. When compiled with -O -feager-blackholing, however, the expected <<loop>> exception occurs.

As far as I know, this weirdness never changes the value produced by a non-bottoming computation, and never changes a non-bottoming computation into a bottoming one. The fix (defining fixST the way fixIO is currently defined) would have a slight performance impact. Is it worth it?

[*] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/15349

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "haskell-core-libraries" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to haskell-core-libraries+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.