LLVM

Projects that follow the best practices below can voluntarily self-certify and show that they've achieved an Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) best practices badge.

If this is your project, please show your badge status on your project page! The badge status looks like this: Badge level for project 8273 is passing Here is how to embed it:

These are the Passing level criteria. You can also view the Silver or Gold level criteria.

        

 Basics 13/13 ●

  • Identification

    The LLVM Project is a collection of modular and reusable compiler and toolchain technologies.

    What programming language(s) are used to implement the project?

  • Basic project website content


    Enough for a badge!

    The project website MUST succinctly describe what the software does (what problem does it solve?). [description_good]

    https://llvm.org/ First paragraph at the top of the page.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project website MUST provide information on how to: obtain, provide feedback (as bug reports or enhancements), and contribute to the software. [interact]

    https://llvm.org * Links to download the software is on the top left side of the website. * LInk to bug tracker is on the top left side of the website. * The last paragraph on the main page has a 'getting involved' link.


    Enough for a badge!

    The information on how to contribute MUST explain the contribution process (e.g., are pull requests used?) (URL required) [contribution]

    Non-trivial contribution file in repository: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md.


    Enough for a badge!

    The information on how to contribute SHOULD include the requirements for acceptable contributions (e.g., a reference to any required coding standard). (URL required) [contribution_requirements]

    https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html


  • FLOSS license

    What license(s) is the project released under?


    Enough for a badge!

    The software produced by the project MUST be released as FLOSS. [floss_license]

    The majority of the project is licensed under: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR NCSA. It is packaged for both Debian and Fedora when means the licenses meets their requirements.


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that any required license(s) for the software produced by the project be approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). [floss_license_osi]

    The majority of the project is licensed under: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR NCSA. There are small sections of code that are licensed under other licenses (e.g. MIT, Unicode, and others), but those are all NCSA approved.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST post the license(s) of its results in a standard location in their source repository. (URL required) [license_location]

    Non-trivial license location file in repository: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/LICENSE.TXT.


  • Documentation


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide basic documentation for the software produced by the project. [documentation_basics]

    There are several different documentation pages for the various sub-projects, but here is the main documentation page for LLVM: https://llvm.org/docs/


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide reference documentation that describes the external interface (both input and output) of the software produced by the project. [documentation_interface]

    The full LLVM and clang API is published via doxygen at: https://llvm.org/doxygen/ and https://clang.llvm.org/doxygen/

    There are a large number of binary tools distributed by this project, the command line options for these are documented on web pages, like this: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangCommandLineReference.html and/or in man pages distributed with the software.


  • Other


    Enough for a badge!

    The project sites (website, repository, and download URLs) MUST support HTTPS using TLS. [sites_https]

    Given only https: URLs.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have one or more mechanisms for discussion (including proposed changes and issues) that are searchable, allow messages and topics to be addressed by URL, enable new people to participate in some of the discussions, and do not require client-side installation of proprietary software. [discussion]

    GitHub supports discussions on issues and pull requests.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD provide documentation in English and be able to accept bug reports and comments about code in English. [english]

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST be maintained. [maintained]


(Advanced) What other users have additional rights to edit this badge entry? Currently: []



  • Public version-controlled source repository


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a version-controlled source repository that is publicly readable and has a URL. [repo_public]

    Repository on GitHub, which provides public git repositories with URLs.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project's source repository MUST track what changes were made, who made the changes, and when the changes were made. [repo_track]

    Repository on GitHub, which uses git. git can track the changes, who made them, and when they were made.


    Enough for a badge!

    To enable collaborative review, the project's source repository MUST include interim versions for review between releases; it MUST NOT include only final releases. [repo_interim]

    Every commit included in our releases is in the public git repository: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project. We also do release candidate releases prior to final versions e.g.: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-17.0.0-rc1 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-17.0.0-rc2 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-17.0.0-rc3 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-17.0.0-rc4


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that common distributed version control software be used (e.g., git) for the project's source repository. [repo_distributed]

    Repository on GitHub, which uses git. git is distributed.


  • Unique version numbering


    Enough for a badge!

    The project results MUST have a unique version identifier for each release intended to be used by users. [version_unique]

    The current project policy is to release a new major release every six months with bug fix releases every two weeks afterwards for 10 to 12 weeks. Example of a year's worth of releases: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-16.0.0 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-16.0.1 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-16.0.2 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-16.0.3 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-16.0.5 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-16.0.6 * Note due to a packaging mistake, we withdrew the 17.0.0 release and replaced it with 17.0.1. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-17.0.1 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-17.0.2 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-17.0.3 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-17.0.4 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-17.0.5 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-17.0.6


    Barely enough for a badge.

    It is SUGGESTED that the Semantic Versioning (SemVer) or Calendar Versioning (CalVer) version numbering format be used for releases. It is SUGGESTED that those who use CalVer include a micro level value. [version_semver]

    What we use is similar to Semantic Versioning, except that when we update the minor release number, that release is not backwards compatible with the previous release. We use the minor version to indicate the ABI has changed.


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that projects identify each release within their version control system. For example, it is SUGGESTED that those using git identify each release using git tags. [version_tags]

    We use git tags to identify each release. e.g. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-17.0.6


  • Release notes


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide, in each release, release notes that are a human-readable summary of major changes in that release to help users determine if they should upgrade and what the upgrade impact will be. The release notes MUST NOT be the raw output of a version control log (e.g., the "git log" command results are not release notes). Projects whose results are not intended for reuse in multiple locations (such as the software for a single website or service) AND employ continuous delivery MAY select "N/A". (URL required) [release_notes]

    We have started doing individual release notes for each bug fix release now:

    https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-18.1.3


    Enough for a badge!

    The release notes MUST identify every publicly known run-time vulnerability fixed in this release that already had a CVE assignment or similar when the release was created. This criterion may be marked as not applicable (N/A) if users typically cannot practically update the software themselves (e.g., as is often true for kernel updates). This criterion applies only to the project results, not to its dependencies. If there are no release notes or there have been no publicly known vulnerabilities, choose N/A. [release_notes_vulns]

    We added a note about the most recent CVE to our release notes:

    https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-18.1.3


  • Bug-reporting process


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide a process for users to submit bug reports (e.g., using an issue tracker or a mailing list). (URL required) [report_process]

    https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD use an issue tracker for tracking individual issues. [report_tracker]

    https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST acknowledge a majority of bug reports submitted in the last 2-12 months (inclusive); the response need not include a fix. [report_responses]

    On March 28, 2024, I ran a query looking at all the issues in the last 12 months:

    87.2% of the bugs had at least one person other than the reporter 'participate' in the bug. 49.9% of the bugs has at least two people other than the reporter 'participate' in the bug.

    From what I can tell 'participate' means someone added a comment, a label, or a reaction to a bug.


    Barely enough for a badge.

    The project SHOULD respond to a majority (>50%) of enhancement requests in the last 2-12 months (inclusive). [enhancement_responses]

    We don't have a formal way to make feature requests. TODO: See if we can determine if there are any feature requests by looking at github labels and measure our response rate.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a publicly available archive for reports and responses for later searching. (URL required) [report_archive]

    https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues


  • Vulnerability report process


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST publish the process for reporting vulnerabilities on the project site. (URL required) [vulnerability_report_process]

    Security Reporting Process: https://llvm.org/docs/Security.html#how-to-report-a-security-issue


    Enough for a badge!

    If private vulnerability reports are supported, the project MUST include how to send the information in a way that is kept private. (URL required) [vulnerability_report_private]

    The instructions here are for reporting a vulnerability privately: https://llvm.org/docs/Security.html#how-to-report-a-security-issue


    Enough for a badge!

    The project's initial response time for any vulnerability report received in the last 6 months MUST be less than or equal to 14 days. [vulnerability_report_response]

    We aim to respond in 2 business days: https://llvm.org/docs/Security.html#how-to-report-a-security-issue


  • Working build system


    Enough for a badge!

    If the software produced by the project requires building for use, the project MUST provide a working build system that can automatically rebuild the software from source code. [build]

    We provide a CMake build system for general use. In addition, there is a GN and also a Bazel build system that can be used as an alternative to CMake in some configurations.


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that common tools be used for building the software. [build_common_tools]

    You can build the software using CMake, which is a very common tool.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD be buildable using only FLOSS tools. [build_floss_tools]

    CMake is a FLOSS tool you can build the project with.


  • Automated test suite


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST use at least one automated test suite that is publicly released as FLOSS (this test suite may be maintained as a separate FLOSS project). The project MUST clearly show or document how to run the test suite(s) (e.g., via a continuous integration (CI) script or via documentation in files such as BUILD.md, README.md, or CONTRIBUTING.md). [test]

    The main test suites are integrated into the https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project repository. Instructions for how to run the tests can be found in our testing guide: https://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html We have buildbots that automatically build and test the new code when it is committed: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/console


    Enough for a badge!

    A test suite SHOULD be invocable in a standard way for that language. [test_invocation]

    You can run the test suite using make check-all or ninja check-all depending on which tool you are using. See https://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that the test suite cover most (or ideally all) the code branches, input fields, and functionality. [test_most]

    As of November 2023, our tests suite covered ~85% of the clang, llvm, and lldb sub-projects. See https://lab.llvm.org/coverage/coverage-reports/coverage/Users/buildslave/jenkins/workspace/coverage/llvm-project/index.html


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that the project implement continuous integration (where new or changed code is frequently integrated into a central code repository and automated tests are run on the result). [test_continuous_integration]

    When code is merged to the main branch, there is an automated buildbot system that tests the result: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/console


  • New functionality testing


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a general policy (formal or not) that as major new functionality is added to the software produced by the project, tests of that functionality should be added to an automated test suite. [test_policy]

    We have a policy of requiring tests for bug fixes and new features: https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#test-cases


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have evidence that the test_policy for adding tests has been adhered to in the most recent major changes to the software produced by the project. [tests_are_added]

    Commit logs for some of our test directories: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commits/main/llvm/test https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commits/main/clang/test

    This is a smaller feature, but this patch for new functionality added tests: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8186e1500b1d9709f10199b7c599274f8a6f8e3a


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that this policy on adding tests (see test_policy) be documented in the instructions for change proposals. [tests_documented_added]

    We don't really have an official change proposal policy, but we do mention n the developer policy that tests should be added for new features: https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#test-cases


  • Warning flags


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST enable one or more compiler warning flags, a "safe" language mode, or use a separate "linter" tool to look for code quality errors or common simple mistakes, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can implement this criterion in the selected language. [warnings]

    The project enables -Wextra and other warnings by default and also enables -Wall except when compiling with clang-cl: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/e07a2f49e3d3c13b6e9b89e0f6118652f2b2d3ac/llvm/cmake/modules/HandleLLVMOptions.cmake#L774


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST address warnings. [warnings_fixed]

    Our latest release (17.0.6) had 9,636,137 lines of code ( cloc --include-lang="C,C++,C/C++ Header" compiler-rt/ clang-tools-extra/ libcxx libcxxabi/ libunwind/ openmp/ lld lldb polly mlir flang llvm/ bolt clang/). In our official release builds, there were 110 warnings: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/actions/runs/7017442066/job/19094022079. This is less that 1 per 100 lines.


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that projects be maximally strict with warnings in the software produced by the project, where practical. [warnings_strict]

    The project enables -Wall (in most configurations) and -Wextra by default. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/e07a2f49e3d3c13b6e9b89e0f6118652f2b2d3ac/llvm/cmake/modules/HandleLLVMOptions.cmake#L774


  • Secure development knowledge


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have at least one primary developer who knows how to design secure software. (See ‘details’ for the exact requirements.) [know_secure_design]

    As of 4/23/2024, we have at least 2 developers how meet this criteria, see the discussion here: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/do-you-have-secure-development-knowledge/78429/4


    Enough for a badge!

    At least one of the project's primary developers MUST know of common kinds of errors that lead to vulnerabilities in this kind of software, as well as at least one method to counter or mitigate each of them. [know_common_errors]

    As of 4/23/2024, we have at least 2 developers how meet this criteria, see the discussion here: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/do-you-have-secure-development-knowledge/78429/4


  • Use basic good cryptographic practices

    Note that some software does not need to use cryptographic mechanisms. If your project produces software that (1) includes, activates, or enables encryption functionality, and (2) might be released from the United States (US) to outside the US or to a non-US-citizen, you may be legally required to take a few extra steps. Typically this just involves sending an email. For more information, see the encryption section of Understanding Open Source Technology & US Export Controls.

    Enough for a badge!

    The software produced by the project MUST use, by default, only cryptographic protocols and algorithms that are publicly published and reviewed by experts (if cryptographic protocols and algorithms are used). [crypto_published]

    Enough for a badge!

    If the software produced by the project is an application or library, and its primary purpose is not to implement cryptography, then it SHOULD only call on software specifically designed to implement cryptographic functions; it SHOULD NOT re-implement its own. [crypto_call]

    Enough for a badge!

    All functionality in the software produced by the project that depends on cryptography MUST be implementable using FLOSS. [crypto_floss]

    Enough for a badge!

    The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST use default keylengths that at least meet the NIST minimum requirements through the year 2030 (as stated in 2012). It MUST be possible to configure the software so that smaller keylengths are completely disabled. [crypto_keylength]

    Enough for a badge!

    The default security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST NOT depend on broken cryptographic algorithms (e.g., MD4, MD5, single DES, RC4, Dual_EC_DRBG), or use cipher modes that are inappropriate to the context, unless they are necessary to implement an interoperable protocol (where the protocol implemented is the most recent version of that standard broadly supported by the network ecosystem, that ecosystem requires the use of such an algorithm or mode, and that ecosystem does not offer any more secure alternative). The documentation MUST describe any relevant security risks and any known mitigations if these broken algorithms or modes are necessary for an interoperable protocol. [crypto_working]

    Enough for a badge!

    The default security mechanisms within the software produced by the project SHOULD NOT depend on cryptographic algorithms or modes with known serious weaknesses (e.g., the SHA-1 cryptographic hash algorithm or the CBC mode in SSH). [crypto_weaknesses]

    Enough for a badge!

    The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project SHOULD implement perfect forward secrecy for key agreement protocols so a session key derived from a set of long-term keys cannot be compromised if one of the long-term keys is compromised in the future. [crypto_pfs]

    Enough for a badge!

    If the software produced by the project causes the storing of passwords for authentication of external users, the passwords MUST be stored as iterated hashes with a per-user salt by using a key stretching (iterated) algorithm (e.g., Argon2id, Bcrypt, Scrypt, or PBKDF2). See also OWASP Password Storage Cheat Sheet. [crypto_password_storage]

    Enough for a badge!

    The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST generate all cryptographic keys and nonces using a cryptographically secure random number generator, and MUST NOT do so using generators that are cryptographically insecure. [crypto_random]

  • Secured delivery against man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST use a delivery mechanism that counters MITM attacks. Using https or ssh+scp is acceptable. [delivery_mitm]

    Releases are hosted on https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases

    We sign our source tarballs, but not our release binaries.


    Enough for a badge!

    A cryptographic hash (e.g., a sha1sum) MUST NOT be retrieved over http and used without checking for a cryptographic signature. [delivery_unsigned]

    All our release assets are hosted at https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases which uses https.


  • Publicly known vulnerabilities fixed


    Enough for a badge!

    There MUST be no unpatched vulnerabilities of medium or higher severity that have been publicly known for more than 60 days. [vulnerabilities_fixed_60_days]

    As of May 9, 2024, all medium or higher CVEs listed here have been fixed: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search/results?form_type=Advanced&results_type=overview&search_type=all&isCpeNameSearch=false&cpe_vendor=cpe%3A%2F%3Allvm


    Enough for a badge!

    Projects SHOULD fix all critical vulnerabilities rapidly after they are reported. [vulnerabilities_critical_fixed]

    As of May 9, 2024, according to https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search/results?form_type=Advanced&results_type=overview&search_type=all&isCpeNameSearch=false&cpe_vendor=cpe%3A%2F%3Allvm there have been no critical CVEs assigned to the project.


  • Other security issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The public repositories MUST NOT leak a valid private credential (e.g., a working password or private key) that is intended to limit public access. [no_leaked_credentials]

    We use https://www.passwordstore.org/ to encrypt and store our project credentials in a private git repository.


  • Static code analysis


    Enough for a badge!

    At least one static code analysis tool (beyond compiler warnings and "safe" language modes) MUST be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that implements this criterion in the selected language. [static_analysis]

    We are running the clang static analyzer against our main branch one per day, and we will be running it for every commit the release branches going forward. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/actions/workflows/ci-post-commit-analyzer.yml


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that at least one of the static analysis tools used for the static_analysis criterion include rules or approaches to look for common vulnerabilities in the analyzed language or environment. [static_analysis_common_vulnerabilities]

    We don't currently use a static analysis tool.


    Enough for a badge!

    All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with static code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. [static_analysis_fixed]

    We don't currently use a static analysis tool.


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that static source code analysis occur on every commit or at least daily. [static_analysis_often]

    We don't currently use a static analysis tool.


  • Dynamic code analysis


    Barely enough for a badge.

    It is SUGGESTED that at least one dynamic analysis tool be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release. [dynamic_analysis]

    We generally don't really much on fuzzing, because we assume that all inputs are trusted.


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that if the software produced by the project includes software written using a memory-unsafe language (e.g., C or C++), then at least one dynamic tool (e.g., a fuzzer or web application scanner) be routinely used in combination with a mechanism to detect memory safety problems such as buffer overwrites. If the project does not produce software written in a memory-unsafe language, choose "not applicable" (N/A). [dynamic_analysis_unsafe]

    We have several buildbots that run tests with the sanitizers enabled: https://lab.llvm.org


    Barely enough for a badge.

    It is SUGGESTED that the project use a configuration for at least some dynamic analysis (such as testing or fuzzing) which enables many assertions. In many cases these assertions should not be enabled in production builds. [dynamic_analysis_enable_assertions]

    We generally don't really much on fuzzing, because we assume that all inputs are trusted.


    Enough for a badge!

    All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with dynamic code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. [dynamic_analysis_fixed]

    We generally don't really much on fuzzing, because we assume that all inputs are trusted.



This data is available under the Community Data License Agreement – Permissive, Version 2.0 (CDLA-Permissive-2.0). This means that a Data Recipient may share the Data, with or without modifications, so long as the Data Recipient makes available the text of this agreement with the shared Data. Please credit Tom Stellard and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Tom Stellard.
Entry created on 2024-01-05 00:45:31 UTC, last updated on 2024-09-16 23:03:47 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2024-06-10 14:10:02 UTC.

Back