Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems 2021
DOI: 10.1145/3445814.3446765
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Incremental CFG patching for binary rewriting

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This undecidable problem is also what we try to circumvent in our paper. Currently, no tools can guarantee a successful binary rewriting in practice [6,30,55,80,81,83]. Therefore, our future work is to explore binary rewriting to achieve the goal of code size reduction.…”
Section: Discussion and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This undecidable problem is also what we try to circumvent in our paper. Currently, no tools can guarantee a successful binary rewriting in practice [6,30,55,80,81,83]. Therefore, our future work is to explore binary rewriting to achieve the goal of code size reduction.…”
Section: Discussion and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our strategy is to simply overwrite these extra basic blocks using a single-byte illegal instruction ł0xFF.ž The benefit of doing so is that any attempt to run the erased code will trigger an exception, and we are immediately aware of implementation errors. Recent binary rewriting works [6,30,55,80,81,83] offer an option to decrease the program size as well by deleting unused binary code. Unfortunately, they bear several limitations and trade-offs that can compromise soundness, such as updating code/data references, ignoring computed code pointers, requiring a custom loader to perform runtime address resolution, and non-negligible runtime overhead.…”
Section: Icfg Constructionmentioning
confidence: 99%