[libcxx-commits] [libcxx] [libc++][hardening] Finish documenting hardening. (PR #92021)

[Will Hawkins via libcxx-commits]

================
@@ -72,17 +75,301 @@ to control the level by passing **one** of the following options to the compiler
 Notes for vendors
 -----------------
 
-Vendors can set the default hardening mode by providing ``LIBCXX_HARDENING_MODE``
-as a configuration option, with the possible values of ``none``, ``fast``,
-``extensive`` and ``debug``. The default value is ``none`` which doesn't enable
-any hardening checks (this mode is sometimes called the ``unchecked`` mode).
+Vendors can set the default hardening mode by providing
+``LIBCXX_HARDENING_MODE`` as a configuration option, with the possible values of
+``none``, ``fast``, ``extensive`` and ``debug``. The default value is ``none``
+which doesn't enable any hardening checks (this mode is sometimes called the
+``unchecked`` mode).
 
 This option controls both the hardening mode that the precompiled library is
 built with and the default hardening mode that users will build with. If set to
 ``none``, the precompiled library will not contain any assertions, and user code
 will default to building without assertions.
 
-Iterator bounds checking
-------------------------
+Vendors can also override the termination handler by :ref:`providing a custom
+header <override-assertion-handler>`.
 
-TODO(hardening)
+Assertion categories
+====================
+
+Inside the library, individual assertions are grouped into different
+*categories*. Each hardening mode enables a different set of assertion
+categories; categories provide an additional layer of abstraction that makes it
+easier to reason about the high-level semantics of a hardening mode.
+
+- ``valid-element-access`` -- checks that any attempts to access a container
+  element, whether through the container object or through an iterator, are
+  valid and do not attempt to go out of bounds or otherwise access
+  a non-existent element. For iterator checks to work, bounded iterators must be
+  enabled in the ABI. Types like ``optional`` and ``function`` are considered
+  one-element containers for the purposes of this check.
+
+- ``valid-input-range`` -- checks that ranges (whether expressed as an iterator
+  pair, an iterator and a sentinel, an iterator and a count, or
+  a ``std::range``) given as input to library functions are valid:
+  - the sentinel is reachable from the begin iterator;
+  - TODO(hardening): both iterators refer to the same container.
+
+  ("input" here refers to "an input given to an algorithm", not to an iterator
+  category)
+
+  Violating assertions in this category leads to an out-of-bounds access.
+
+- ``non-null`` -- checks that the pointer being dereferenced is not null. On
+  most modern platforms zero address does not refer to an actual location in
+  memory, so a null pointer dereference would not compromize the memory security
+  of a program (however, it is still undefined behavior that can result in
+  strange errors due to compiler optimizations).
+
+- ``non-overlapping-ranges`` -- for functions that take several ranges as
+  arguments, checks that the given ranges do not overlap.
+
+- ``valid-deallocation`` -- checks that an attempt to deallocate memory is valid
+  (e.g. the given object was allocated by the given allocator). Violating this
+  category typically results in a memory leak.
+
+- ``valid-external-api-call`` -- checks that a call to an external API doesn't
+  fail in an unexpected manner. This includes triggering documented cases of
+  undefined behavior in an external library (like attempting to unlock an
+  unlocked mutex in pthreads). Any API external to the library falls under this
+  category (from system calls to compiler intrinsics). We generally don't expect
+  these failures to compromize memory safety or otherwise create an immediate
+  security issue.
+
+- ``compatible-allocator`` -- checks any operations that exchange nodes between
+  containers to make sure the containers have compatible allocators.
+
+- ``argument-within-domain`` -- checks that the given argument is within the
+  domain of valid arguments for the function. Violating this typically produces
+  an incorrect result (e.g. the clamp algorithm returns the original value
+  without clamping it due to incorrect functors) or puts an object into an
+  invalid state (e.g. a string view where only a subset of elements is possible
+  to access). This category is for assertions violating which doesn't cause any
+  immediate issues in the library -- whatever the consequences are, they will
+  happen in the user code.
+
+- ``pedantic`` -- checks prerequisites that are imposed by the Standard, but
+  violating which happens to be benign in our implementation.
+
+- ``semantic-requirement`` -- checks that the given argument satisfies the
+  semantic requirements imposed by the Standard. Typically, there is no simple
+  way to completely prove that a semantic requirement is satisfied; thus, this
+  would often be a heuristic check and it might be quite expensive.
----------------
hawkinsw wrote:

```suggestion
  check would require a heuristic analysis and it might be quite expensive.
```

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92021