Skip to content

restructure how verified configs are displayed#306

Merged
lsf37 merged 2 commits intomasterfrom
verified-configs
Nov 26, 2025
Merged

restructure how verified configs are displayed#306
lsf37 merged 2 commits intomasterfrom
verified-configs

Conversation

@lsf37
Copy link
Member

@lsf37 lsf37 commented Nov 26, 2025

  • each hardware platform now declares a list of verified configs (empty if no verification, one or more of ARM, ARM_HYP, AARCH64, RISCV64, X64 otherwise; can be extended with other tags, only needs a corresponding section on verified configs page)

  • verified configs page has a section for each main config class, lists all platforms for that class

  • platforms page produces a tick if any verified config is present and links to the verified configs each platform enumerates

Signed-off-by: Gerwin Klein <gerwin.klein@proofcraft.systems>
- integrity and availability (access control)
- confidentiality (information flow)
- binary correctness, covering C functions that have C-level verification
- user-level system initialisation
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is meant with this? Setting up the initial task?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Verification of the capDL initialiser root task (on the model level, there is no C-level proof at the moment, although there was a binary-level proof via CakeML for a while that never really made it into production).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Have added more explanation now that there is space (previously this was all very contracted and probably not useful).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hm, but capDL isn't part of the seL4 kernel, so somewhat strange to mention it here, especially as it should be pretty much platform independent.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's part of the proof stack and it is very architecture dependent (but largely platform independent inside AArch32, although sensitive to things like FPU on/off etc).

@Indanz
Copy link
Contributor

Indanz commented Nov 26, 2025

Is there a way to check the rendered result? I tried downloading the artifact, but that wasn't very useful.

@lsf37
Copy link
Member Author

lsf37 commented Nov 26, 2025

Is there a way to check the rendered result? I tried downloading the artifact, but that wasn't very useful.

Unfortunately not from the GitHub interface, you'd have to clone and build locally to browse it or point a web server at the generated artefact.

- each hardware platform now declares a list of verified configs
  (empty if no verification, one or more of ARM, ARM_HYP, AARCH64,
  RISCV64, X64 otherwise; can be extended with other tags, only needs
  a corresponding section on verified configs page)

- verified configs page has a section for each main config class,
  lists all platforms for that class

- platforms page produces a tick if any verified config is present
  and links to the verified configs each platform enumerates

Signed-off-by: Gerwin Klein <gerwin.klein@proofcraft.systems>
@lsf37
Copy link
Member Author

lsf37 commented Nov 26, 2025

Rebased, added capDL explanation, and found one html validation error (and fixed it).

This reminds me that I wanted to add the validator and link checker for the docsite. Opened #307 and #308.

@lsf37 lsf37 merged commit f545843 into master Nov 26, 2025
9 checks passed
@lsf37 lsf37 deleted the verified-configs branch November 26, 2025 22:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

Comments