Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

s2n proofs cannot be reproduced locally #736

Closed
robdockins opened this issue Jun 12, 2020 · 1 comment
Closed

s2n proofs cannot be reproduced locally #736

robdockins opened this issue Jun 12, 2020 · 1 comment
Labels
priority High-priority issues tech debt Issues that document or involve technical debt test assets Issues involving test programs or other test assets tooling: release engineering Issues involving releases, release processes, or other release engineering concerns

Comments

@robdockins
Copy link
Contributor

With GaloisInc/s2n checked out to hash eae05a158032468fa18de0d8a9132c310abaa4f8, I attempt the following interaction on OSX 10.15.5


$ export CLANG=/usr/local/Cellar/llvm\@7/7.1.0_1/bin/clang
$ export LLVMLINK=/usr/local/Cellar/llvm\@7/7.1.0_1/bin/llvm-link
$ make -C tests/saw

This eventually results in the following output:

[16:49:08.562] Proving correctness of s2n_advance_message
[16:49:09.147] Stack trace:
"prove_handshake_io_lowlevel" (/Users/rdockins/code/s2n/tests/saw/verify_cork_uncork.saw:23:1-23:28):
"crucible_llvm_verify" (/Users/rdockins/code/s2n/tests/saw/spec/handshake/handshake.saw:70:34-70:54):
"s2n_advance_message_spec" (/Users/rdockins/code/s2n/tests/saw/spec/handshake/handshake.saw:70:101-70:125):
"crucible_points_to" (/Users/rdockins/code/s2n/tests/saw/spec/handshake/handshake_io_lowlevel.saw:308:5-308:23):
types not memory-compatible:
<{ <{ i32, i32, [30 x i32] }>, <{ i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, [25 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], <{ [10 x i32], [22 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [11 x i32], [21 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [11 x i32], [21 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [12 x i32], [20 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [13 x i32], [19 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [14 x i32], [18 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [14 x i32], [18 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [15 x i32], [17 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], <{ [8 x i32], [24 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], <{ [11 x i32], [21 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [12 x i32], [20 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [12 x i32], [20 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [13 x i32], [19 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [14 x i32], [18 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [15 x i32], [17 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [15 x i32], [17 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [16 x i32], [16 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [12 x i32], [20 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [13 x i32], [19 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [13 x i32], [19 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [14 x i32], [18 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [13 x i32], [19 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [14 x i32], [18 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [14 x i32], [18 x i32] }>, [32 x i32], [32 x i32], [32 x i32], <{ [15 x i32], [17 x i32] }>, [128 x [32 x i32]] }>
[256 x [32 x i32]]

Instead I expect to be able to run this script and locally test the proof still works outside the CI system.

@robdockins robdockins added priority High-priority issues tech debt Issues that document or involve technical debt tooling: test infrastructure Issues involving test infrastructure or test execution, or making SAW more testable labels Jun 12, 2020
@atomb atomb added the devops label Jul 30, 2021
@chameco
Copy link
Contributor

chameco commented Apr 25, 2022

Fixed in #823 - see #738.

@chameco chameco closed this as completed Apr 25, 2022
@sauclovian-g sauclovian-g added tooling: release engineering Issues involving releases, release processes, or other release engineering concerns test assets Issues involving test programs or other test assets and removed devops tooling: test infrastructure Issues involving test infrastructure or test execution, or making SAW more testable labels Oct 24, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
priority High-priority issues tech debt Issues that document or involve technical debt test assets Issues involving test programs or other test assets tooling: release engineering Issues involving releases, release processes, or other release engineering concerns
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants