research-article

Structuring the verification of heap-manipulating programs

Authors:

Aleksandar Nanevski,

Viktor Vafeiadis,

Josh BerdineAuthors Info & Claims

POPL '10: Proceedings of the 37th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages

Pages 261 - 274

https://doi.org/10.1145/1706299.1706331

Published: 17 January 2010 Publication History

Abstract

Most systems based on separation logic consider only restricted forms of implication or non-separating conjunction, as full support for these connectives requires a non-trivial notion of variable context, inherited from the logic of bunched implications (BI). We show that in an expressive type theory such as Coq, one can avoid the intricacies of BI, and support full separation logic very efficiently, using the native structuring primitives of the type theory.

Our proposal uses reflection to enable equational reasoning about heaps, and Hoare triples with binary postconditions to further facilitate it. We apply these ideas to Hoare Type Theory, to obtain a new proof technique for verification of higher-order imperative programs that is general, extendable, and supports very short proofs, even without significant use of automation by tactics. We demonstrate the usability of the technique by verifying the fast congruence closure algorithm of Nieuwenhuis and Oliveras, employed in the state-of-the-art Barcelogic SAT solver.

References

[1]

A. W. Appel. Tactics for separation logic. Available at http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/papers/septacs.pdf, 2006.

[2]

B. Barras and B. Bernardo. The implicit calculus of constructions as a programming language with dependent types. In FoSSaCS'08, pages 365--379.

Digital Library

[3]

C. Barrett, M. Deters, A. Oliveras, and A. Stump. Design and results of the 4th annual satisfiability modulo theories competition (SMT-COMP 2008). To appear.

[4]

J. M. L. Bean. Ribbon Proofs - A Proof System for the Logic of Bunched Implications. PhD thesis, Queen Mary University of London, 2006.

[5]

J. Berdine, C. Calcagno, B. Cook, D. Distefano, P. W. O'Hearn, T. Wies, and H. Yang. Shape analysis for composite data structures. In CAV'07, pages 178--192.

Digital Library

[6]

J. Berdine, C. Calcagno, and P. W. O'Hearn. Smallfoot: Modular automatic assertion checking with separation logic. In Formal Methods for Components and Objects, pages 115--137, 2006.

Digital Library

[7]

L. Birkedal and H. Yang. Relational parametricity and separation logic. Logical Methods in Computer Science, 4(2:6):1--27, 2008.

[8]

C. Calcagno, D. Distefano, P. O'Hearn, and H. Yang. Compositional shape analysis bymeans of bi-abduction. In POPL'09, pages 289--300.

Digital Library

[9]

C. Calcagno, P. W. O'Hearn, and H. Yang. Local action and abstract separation logic. In LICS'07, pages 366--368.

Digital Library

[10]

B.-Y. E. Chang and X. Rival. Relational inductive shape analysis. In POPL'08, pages 247--260.

Digital Library

[11]

A. J. Chlipala, J. G. Malecha, G. Morrisett, A. Shinnar, and R. Wisnesky. Effective interactive proofs for higher-order imperative programs. In ICFP'09, pages 79--90.

Digital Library

[12]

X. Feng, Z. Shao, Y. Dong, and Y. Guo. Certifying low-level programs with hardware interrupts and preemptive threads. In PLDI'08, pages 170--182.

Digital Library

[13]

D. Galmiche and D. Méry. Semantic labelled tableaux for propositional BI. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(5):707--753, 2003.

[14]

G. Gonthier and A. Mahboubi. A small scale reflection extension for the Coq system. Technical Report 6455, INRIA, 2007.

[15]

N. R. Krishnaswami, J. Aldrich, L. Birkedal, K. Svendsen, and A. Buisse. Design patterns in separation logic. In TLDI'09, pages 105--116.

Digital Library

[16]

X. Leroy and S. Blazy. Formal verification of a C-like memory model and its uses for verifying program transformations. J. Autom. Reason., 41(1):1--31, 2008.

Digital Library

[17]

N. Marty and R. Affeldt. A certified verifier for a fragment of separation logic. Computer Software, 25(3):135--147, 2008.

[18]

A. McCreight. Practical tactics for separation logic. In TPHOL'09, pages 343--358.

Digital Library

[19]

A. Nanevski, G. Morrisett, and L. Birkedal. Polymorphism and separation in Hoare Type Theory. In ICFP'06, pages 62--73.

Digital Library

[20]

A. Nanevski, G. Morrisett, and L. Birkedal. Hoare type theory, polymorphism and separation. Journal of Functional Programming, 18(5&6):865--911, 2008.

Digital Library

[21]

A. Nanevski, G. Morrisett, A. Shinnar, P. Govereau, and L. Birkedal. Ynot: Dependent types for imperative programs. In ICFP'08, pages 229--240.

Digital Library

[22]

H. H. Nguyen and W.-N. Chin. Enhancing program verification with lemmas. In CAV'08, pages 355--369.

Digital Library

[23]

R. Nieuwenhuis and A. Oliveras. Fast congruence closure and extensions. Information and Computation, 205(4):557--580, 2007.

Digital Library

[24]

P. O'Hearn. On bunched typing. Journal of Functional Programming, 13(4):747--796, 2003.

Digital Library

[25]

P. O'Hearn, J. Reynolds, and H. Yang. Local reasoning about programs that alter data structures. In CSL'01, pages 1--19.

Digital Library

[26]

J. C. Reynolds. Separation logic: A logic for shared mutable data structures. In LICS'02, pages 55--74.

Digital Library

[27]

K. Zee, V. Kuncak, and M. Rinard. An integrated proof language for imperative programs. In PLDI'09, pages 338--351.

Digital Library

Cited By

Zhao QPîrlea GAng ZMathur USergey ITimany ATraytel DPientka BBlazy S(2024)Rooting for Efficiency: Mechanised Reasoning about Array-Based Trees in Separation LogicProceedings of the 13th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs10.1145/3636501.3636944(45-59)Online publication date: 9-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3636501.3636944
Gopinathan KKeoliya MSergey I(2023)Mostly Automated Proof Repair for Verified LibrariesProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/35912217:PLDI(25-49)Online publication date: 6-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3591221
Carvalho LSeco J(2021)Deep Semantic Versioning for Evolution and VariabilityProceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming10.1145/3479394.3479416(1-13)Online publication date: 6-Sep-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3479394.3479416
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Structuring the verification of heap-manipulating programs
1. Theory of computation
  1. Semantics and reasoning
    1. Program reasoning
      1. Program verification

Recommendations

Ynot: dependent types for imperative programs
ICFP '08: Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming

We describe an axiomatic extension to the Coq proof assistant, that supports writing, reasoning about, and extracting higher-order, dependently-typed programs with side-effects. Coq already includes a powerful functional language that supports dependent ...
Structuring the verification of heap-manipulating programs
POPL '10

Most systems based on separation logic consider only restricted forms of implication or non-separating conjunction, as full support for these connectives requires a non-trivial notion of variable context, inherited from the logic of bunched implications ...
Ynot: dependent types for imperative programs
ICFP '08

We describe an axiomatic extension to the Coq proof assistant, that supports writing, reasoning about, and extracting higher-order, dependently-typed programs with side-effects. Coq already includes a powerful functional language that supports dependent ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

POPL '10: Proceedings of the 37th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages

January 2010

520 pages

ISBN:9781605584799

DOI:10.1145/1706299

General Chair:
Manuel Hermenegildo
IMDEA-Software and T.U. of Madrid, Spain
,
Program Chair:
Jens Palsberg
UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles

ACM SIGPLAN Notices Volume 45, Issue 1
POPL '10
January 2010
500 pages
ISSN:0362-1340
EISSN:1558-1160
DOI:10.1145/1707801
Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2010 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages

In-Cooperation

SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 January 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

POPL '10

Sponsor:

SIGPLAN

POPL '10: The 37th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages

January 17 - 23, 2010

Madrid, Spain

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 860 of 4,328 submissions, 20%

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

65
Total Citations
View Citations
399
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)4
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Zhao QPîrlea GAng ZMathur USergey ITimany ATraytel DPientka BBlazy S(2024)Rooting for Efficiency: Mechanised Reasoning about Array-Based Trees in Separation LogicProceedings of the 13th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs10.1145/3636501.3636944(45-59)Online publication date: 9-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3636501.3636944
Gopinathan KKeoliya MSergey I(2023)Mostly Automated Proof Repair for Verified LibrariesProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/35912217:PLDI(25-49)Online publication date: 6-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3591221
Carvalho LSeco J(2021)Deep Semantic Versioning for Evolution and VariabilityProceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming10.1145/3479394.3479416(1-13)Online publication date: 6-Sep-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3479394.3479416
Watanabe YGopinathan KPîrlea GPolikarpova NSergey I(2021)Certifying the synthesis of heap-manipulating programsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34735895:ICFP(1-29)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3473589
Polikarpova NSergey I(2019)Structuring the synthesis of heap-manipulating programsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32903853:POPL(1-30)Online publication date: 2-Jan-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290385
Martínez GAhman DDumitrescu VGiannarakis NHawblitzel CHriţcu CNarasimhamurthy MParaskevopoulou ZPit-Claudel CProtzenko JRamananandro TRastogi ASwamy N(2019)Meta-F $$^\star $$ : Proof Automation with SMT, Tactics, and MetaprogramsProgramming Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-030-17184-1_2(30-59)Online publication date: 6-Apr-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17184-1_2
Krebbers RJourdan JJung RTassarotti JKaiser JTimany ACharguéraud ADreyer D(2018)MoSeL: a general, extensible modal framework for interactive proofs in separation logicProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32367722:ICFP(1-30)Online publication date: 30-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3236772
Pîrlea GSergey I(2018)Mechanising blockchain consensusProceedings of the 7th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs - CPP 201810.1145/3176245.3167086(78-90)Online publication date: 2018
https://doi.org/10.1145/3176245.3167086
Pîrlea GSergey IAndronick JFelty A(2018)Mechanising blockchain consensusProceedings of the 7th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs10.1145/3167086(78-90)Online publication date: 8-Jan-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3167086
Sergey IWilcox JTatlock Z(2017)Programming and proving with distributed protocolsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/31581162:POPL(1-30)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3158116
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten