I've seen lots of chatter about Fil-C recently, which pitches itself as a memory safe implementation of C/C++. You can read the gritty details of how this is achieved, but for people coming across it for the first time, I think there is value in showing a simplified version, as once you've understood the simplified version it becomes a smaller mental step to then understand the production-quality version.

The real Fil-C has a compiler pass which rewrites LLVM IR, whereas the simplified model is an automated rewrite of C/C++ source code: unsafe code is transformed into safe code. The first rewrite is that within every function, every local variable of pointer type gains an accompanying local variable of AllocationRecord* type, for example:

void f() {
  T1* p1;
  T2* p2;
  uint64_t x;
  ...

|

void f() {
  T1* p1; AllocationRecord* p1ar = NULL;
  T2* p2; AllocationRecord* p2ar = NULL;
  uint64_t x;
  ...

|

Where AllocationRecord is something like:

struct AllocationRecord {
  char* visible_bytes;
  char* invisible_bytes;
  size_t length;
};

Trivial operations on local variables of pointer type are rewritten to also move around the AllocationRecord*:

When pointers are passed-to or returned-from functions, the code is rewritten to include the AllocationRecord* as well as the original pointer. Calls to particular standard library functions are additionally rewritten to call Fil-C versions of those functions. Putting this together, we get:

  p1 = malloc(x);
  ...
  free(p1);

|

  {p1, p1ar} = filc_malloc(x);
  ...
  filc_free(p1, p1ar);

|

The (simplified) implementation of filc_malloc actually performs three distinct allocations rather than just the requested one:

void* filc_malloc(size_t length) {
  AllocationRecord* ar = malloc(sizeof(AllocationRecord));
  ar->visible_bytes = malloc(length);
  ar->invisible_bytes = calloc(length, 1);
  ar->length = length;
  return {ar->visible_bytes, ar};
}

When a pointer variable is dereferenced, the accompanying AllocationRecord* is used to perform bounds checks:

  x = *p1;
  ...
  *p2 = x;

|

  assert(p1ar != NULL);
  uint64_t i = (char*)p1 - p1ar->visible_bytes;
  assert(i < p1ar->length);
  assert((p1ar->length - i) >= sizeof(*p1));
  x = *p1;
  ...
  assert(p2ar != NULL);
  uint64_t i = (char*)p2 - p2ar->visible_bytes;
  assert(i < p2ar->length);
  assert((p2ar->length - i) >= sizeof(*p2));
  *p2 = x;

|

Things become more interesting when the value being stored or loaded is itself a pointer. As already seen, local variables of pointer type have their accompanying AllocationRecord* variable inserted by the compiler, which the compiler can do because it has full control and visibility of all local variables. Once pointers exist in the heap rather than just in local variables, things become harder, but this is where invisible_bytes comes in: if there is a pointer at visible_bytes + i, then its accompanying AllocationRecord* is at invisible_bytes + i. In other words, invisible_bytes is an array with element type AllocationRecord*. To ensure sane access to this array, i must be a multiple of sizeof(AllocationRecord*). The extra logic for this is highlighted in green:

  p2 = *p1;
  ...
  *p1 = p2;

|

  assert(p1ar != NULL);
  uint64_t i = (char*)p1 - p1ar->visible_bytes;
  assert(i < p1ar->length);
  assert((p1ar->length - i) >= sizeof(*p1));
  assert((i % sizeof(AllocationRecord*)) == 0);
  p2 = *p1;
  p2ar = *(AllocationRecord**)(p1ar->invisible_bytes + i);
  ...
  assert(p1ar != NULL);
  uint64_t i = (char*)p1 - p1ar->visible_bytes;
  assert(i < p1ar->length);
  assert((p1ar->length - i) >= sizeof(*p1));
  assert((i % sizeof(AllocationRecord*)) == 0);
  *p1 = p2;
  *(AllocationRecord**)(p1ar->invisible_bytes + i) = p2ar;

|

One thing we've not yet seen is filc_free, which does something like:

void filc_free(void* p, AllocationRecord* par) {
  if (p != NULL) {
    assert(par != NULL);
    assert(p == par->visible_bytes);
    free(par->visible_bytes);
    free(par->invisible_bytes);
    par->visible_bytes = NULL;
    par->invisible_bytes = NULL;
    par->length = 0;
  }
}

The eagle-eyed will note that filc_malloc made three allocations, but filc_free only frees two of them: the AllocationRecord object isn't freed by filc_free. This gap gets covered by the addition of a garbage collector (GC). You heard that right - this is C/C++ with a GC. The production-quality Fil-C has a parallel concurrent incremental collector, but a stop-the-world collector suffices for a simple model. The collector traces through AllocationRecord objects, and frees any unreachable ones. It also does two more things:

1. Upon freeing an unreachable AllocationRecord, call filc_free on it.
2. If an AllocationRecord has length 0, any pointers to that AllocationRecord will be changed to point at a single canonical AllocationRecord with length 0.

Point 1 means that if you're using Fil-C, forgetting to call free is no longer a memory leak: the memory will be automatically freed by the GC. That isn't to say that calling free is useless, as it allows memory to be freed earlier than the GC might otherwise choose to. Point 2 means that after calling free on something, the accompanying AllocationRecord will eventually become unreachable, and thus itself eventually be freed.

Once a GC is present, it becomes tempting to use it more. One such use is making it safe to take the address of local variables, even if the resultant pointer is used after the local variable goes out of scope. If the compiler sees that a local variable has its address taken, and cannot prove that the address doesn't escape beyond the lifetime of the local variable, then the Fil-C transform will promote that local variable to be heap-allocated via malloc rather than stack-allocated. A matching free doesn't need to be inserted, as the GC will pick it up.

The final thing I want to highlight is the Fil-C version of memmove. This function from the C standard library manipulates arbitrary memory, and the compiler has no knowledge of what pointers might be present in that memory. To get past this problem, a reasonable heuristic is used: any pointers within arbitrary memory need to be completely within arbitrary memory, and need to be correctly aligned. This has the interesting consequence that memmove of eight aligned bytes behaves differently to eight separate 1-byte memmoves of the constituent bytes: the former will also memmove the corresponding range of invisible_bytes, whereas the latter will not.

That wraps up the simplified model. Some of the additional complications in the production-quality version include:

• Threads: Concurrency makes the GC more complex. It also means that filc_free can't immediately free anything, as the free-ing thread might be racing with a different thread trying to access the underlying memory. Atomic operations on pointers also need some extra magic, as the default rewriting of a pointer load or store is to two loads or stores, which breaks atomicity.
• Function pointers: An additional piece of metadata in AllocationRecord is used to denote that the visible_bytes pointer is a pointer to executable code rather than regular data. Calls through a function pointer p1 check that p1 == p1ar->visible_bytes and that p1ar denotes a function pointer. To avoid type confusion attacks on function pointers, the function calling ABI also needs to verify that the type signature is correct. One way of doing this is to make all functions take the same type signature: all parameters are passed as if they were packed into a structure and passed through memory, and at ABI boundaries, every function expects to receive just a single AllocationRecord corresponding to that structure.
• Memory usage optimization: It is very tempting to have filc_malloc avoid immediately allocating invisible_bytes, and instead allocate it on-demand later should it ever be required. It is also tempting to colocate the AllocationRecord and visible_bytes into a single allocation. If the underlying malloc prepends metadata to every allocation, it looks tempting to put that metadata in AllocationRecord instead.
• Performance optimization: Memory safety in Fil-C comes at a performance cost, so it is worth playing various tricks to claw back some of that lost performance.

With the baseline understanding in place, I want to finish on a question: when might you want to use Fil-C? Personally, my answers are:

1. You have a large quantity of C/C++ code which seems to work, but it hasn't been proven memory-safe, and you're willing to introduce a GC and take a large performance hit in exchange for memory safety (perhaps as a temporary measure until you rewrite in Java or Go or Rust).
2. Just like you can run C/C++ code under ASan to find memory bugs, you can run it under Fil-C to find memory bugs.
3. If you have a language with a strong compile-time story, and the compile-time language is the same as the runtime language (for example, Zig), you could use a Fil-C setup for safe compile-time evaluation, even if runtime evaluation is unsafe.
4. Some people like to contemplate pointer provenance. If you've not come across this concept before, here's a nerd-snipe question: assuming p1 and p2 have the same type, is it valid for a compiler to rewrite if (p1 == p2) { f(p1); } to if (p1 == p2) { f(p2); }? In Fil-C, the answer is clearly "no", as it changes which AllocationRecord* gets passed along to f. This makes Fil-C a useful example of a concrete system which has pointer provenance.