Re: Formal semantics for C

To: Corky Cartwright <cork@rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Formal semantics for C
From: Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 00:39:10 +1100
Cc: types@cis.upenn.edu
In-Reply-To: <15403.58158.60986.234019@frosty.cs.rice.edu>
References: <200112251446.fBPEk5Q19557@saul.cis.upenn.edu> <15401.31359.196762.870718@frosty.cs.rice.edu> <20011228001534.A8225@hg.cs.mu.oz.au> <15403.24479.873011.114703@frosty.cs.rice.edu> <20011228061800.A10523@hg.cs.mu.oz.au> <15403.58158.60986.234019@frosty.cs.rice.edu>
Sender: Fergus Henderson <fjh@earth.cs.mu.oz.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i

On 27-Dec-2001, Corky Cartwright <cork@rice.edu> wrote:
> 
> According to the sanitized semantics that
> maps all unsafe operations to "undefined", none of these security
> breaches can possibly happen

Why do you say that?

If you're talking about the semantics which maps programs that
execute unsafe operations to the universal set of all possible
behaviours, then your claim that this semantics says that these
security breaches can't happen seems obviously false to me.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Formal semantics for C

From: Corky Cartwright <cork@rice.edu>

References:

Re: Formal semantics for C

From: Corky Cartwright <cork@rice.edu>

Re: Formal semantics for C

From: Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>

Re: Formal semantics for C

From: Corky Cartwright <cork@rice.edu>

Re: Formal semantics for C

From: Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>

Re: Formal semantics for C

From: Corky Cartwright <cork@rice.edu>