This was done with mrustc, which produced byte identical output.
replyBetter than that, you can get a bootstrapped rust from the Guix project, which has bootstrapped its entire system from source code from only a tiny verifiable binary.
replyIt's not diverse in that case - it's the same compiler source compiled to binaries twice - it's just that with one compiler you've gone via a C intermediate representation. For the purposes of diversity it's the same as compiling rustc with the cranelift/gcc backend.
replyFrom a "trusting trust" point of view, compiling rustc-translated-to-C with a C compiler (and comparing the result to normally-compiled rustc) is a valid demonstration, because we're again starting from code and can eliminate the possibility of a binary-resident compromise.
replyThe actual issue here is that the translation was done using a rustc backend, and therefore an existing rustc binary which could be compromised and inject a "if (user=="wmanley") {...}" that isn't present in the original Rust code. If cilly was completely standalone (like mrustc), or if you had a rustc+cilly build you trusted, there would be no issue.
This reminds me of https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref...
replyThe sole and entire purpose of Diverse Double-Compiling is addressing Thompson's Trusting Trust: https://dwheeler.com/trusting-trust/
replyI didn't know there's a solution, thanks!
replyI'm also a fan of https://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/coding-machines/
replyAwesome idea!
reply