A Linear First-Order Functional Intermediate Language for Verified Compilers

We present the linear first-order intermediate language IL for verified compilers. IL is a functional language with calls to a nondeterministic environment. We give IL terms a second, imperative semantic interpretation and obtain a register transfer language. For the imperative interpretation we establish a notion of live variables. Based on live variables, we formulate a decidable property called coherence ensuring that the functional and the imperative interpretation of a term coincide. We formulate a register assignment algorithm for IL and prove its correctness. The algorithm translates a functional IL program into an equivalent imperative IL program. Correctness follows from the fact that the algorithm reaches a coherent program after consistently renaming local variables. We prove that the maximal number of live variables in the initial program bounds the number of different variables in the final coherent program. The entire development is formalized in Coq.Comment: Addressed comments from reviewers (ITP 2015): (1) Added discussion of a paper in related work (2) Added definition of renamed-apart in appendix (3) Formulation changes in a coupe of place

A formally verified compiler back-end

This article describes the development and formal verification (proof of semantic preservation) of a compiler back-end from Cminor (a simple imperative intermediate language) to PowerPC assembly code, using the Coq proof assistant both for programming the compiler and for proving its correctness. Such a verified compiler is useful in the context of formal methods applied to the certification of critical software: the verification of the compiler guarantees that the safety properties proved on the source code hold for the executable compiled code as well

Specifying and Executing Optimizations for Parallel Programs

Compiler optimizations, usually expressed as rewrites on program graphs, are a core part of all modern compilers. However, even production compilers have bugs, and these bugs are difficult to detect and resolve. The problem only becomes more complex when compiling parallel programs; from the choice of graph representation to the possibility of race conditions, optimization designers have a range of factors to consider that do not appear when dealing with single-threaded programs. In this paper we present PTRANS, a domain-specific language for formal specification of compiler transformations, and describe its executable semantics. The fundamental approach of PTRANS is to describe program transformations as rewrites on control flow graphs with temporal logic side conditions. The syntax of PTRANS allows cleaner, more comprehensible specification of program optimizations; its executable semantics allows these specifications to act as prototypes for the optimizations themselves, so that candidate optimizations can be tested and refined before going on to include them in a compiler. We demonstrate the use of PTRANS to state, test, and refine the specification of a redundant store elimination optimization on parallel programs.Comment: In Proceedings GRAPHITE 2014, arXiv:1407.767

Beyond Good and Evil: Formalizing the Security Guarantees of Compartmentalizing Compilation

Compartmentalization is good security-engineering practice. By breaking a large software system into mutually distrustful components that run with minimal privileges, restricting their interactions to conform to well-defined interfaces, we can limit the damage caused by low-level attacks such as control-flow hijacking. When used to defend against such attacks, compartmentalization is often implemented cooperatively by a compiler and a low-level compartmentalization mechanism. However, the formal guarantees provided by such compartmentalizing compilation have seen surprisingly little investigation. We propose a new security property, secure compartmentalizing compilation (SCC), that formally characterizes the guarantees provided by compartmentalizing compilation and clarifies its attacker model. We reconstruct our property by starting from the well-established notion of fully abstract compilation, then identifying and lifting three important limitations that make standard full abstraction unsuitable for compartmentalization. The connection to full abstraction allows us to prove SCC by adapting established proof techniques; we illustrate this with a compiler from a simple unsafe imperative language with procedures to a compartmentalized abstract machine.Comment: Nit

Combining Static and Dynamic Contract Checking for Curry

Static type systems are usually not sufficient to express all requirements on function calls. Hence, contracts with pre- and postconditions can be used to express more complex constraints on operations. Contracts can be checked at run time to ensure that operations are only invoked with reasonable arguments and return intended results. Although such dynamic contract checking provides more reliable program execution, it requires execution time and could lead to program crashes that might be detected with more advanced methods at compile time. To improve this situation for declarative languages, we present an approach to combine static and dynamic contract checking for the functional logic language Curry. Based on a formal model of contract checking for functional logic programming, we propose an automatic method to verify contracts at compile time. If a contract is successfully verified, dynamic checking of it can be omitted. This method decreases execution time without degrading reliable program execution. In the best case, when all contracts are statically verified, it provides trust in the software since crashes due to contract violations cannot occur during program execution.Comment: Pre-proceedings paper presented at the 27th International Symposium on Logic-Based Program Synthesis and Transformation (LOPSTR 2017), Namur, Belgium, 10-12 October 2017 (arXiv:1708.07854

Verified Compilers for a Multi-Language World

Though there has been remarkable progress on formally verified compilers in recent years, most of these compilers suffer from a serious limitation: they are proved correct under the assumption that they will only be used to compile whole programs. This is an unrealistic assumption since most software systems today are comprised of components written in different languages - both typed and untyped - compiled by different compilers to a common target, as well as low-level libraries that may be handwritten in the target language. We are pursuing a new methodology for building verified compilers for today\u27s world of multi-language software. The project has two central themes, both of which stem from a view of compiler correctness as a language interoperability problem. First, to specify correctness of component compilation, we require that if a source component s compiles to target component t, then t linked with some arbitrary target code t\u27 should behave the same as s interoperating with t\u27. The latter demands a formal semantics of interoperability between the source and target languages. Second, to enable safe interoperability between components compiled from languages as different as ML, Rust, Python, and C, we plan to design a gradually type-safe target language based on LLVM that supports safe interoperability between more precisely typed, less precisely typed, and type-unsafe components. Our approach opens up a new avenue for exploring sensible language interoperability while also tackling compiler correctness

Mechanized semantics

The goal of this lecture is to show how modern theorem provers---in this case, the Coq proof assistant---can be used to mechanize the specification of programming languages and their semantics, and to reason over individual programs and over generic program transformations, as typically found in compilers. The topics covered include: operational semantics (small-step, big-step, definitional interpreters); a simple form of denotational semantics; axiomatic semantics and Hoare logic; generation of verification conditions, with application to program proof; compilation to virtual machine code and its proof of correctness; an example of an optimizing program transformation (dead code elimination) and its proof of correctness