Invariant Synthesis for Incomplete Verification Engines

We propose a framework for synthesizing inductive invariants for incomplete verification engines, which soundly reduce logical problems in undecidable theories to decidable theories. Our framework is based on the counter-example guided inductive synthesis principle (CEGIS) and allows verification engines to communicate non-provability information to guide invariant synthesis. We show precisely how the verification engine can compute such non-provability information and how to build effective learning algorithms when invariants are expressed as Boolean combinations of a fixed set of predicates. Moreover, we evaluate our framework in two verification settings, one in which verification engines need to handle quantified formulas and one in which verification engines have to reason about heap properties expressed in an expressive but undecidable separation logic. Our experiments show that our invariant synthesis framework based on non-provability information can both effectively synthesize inductive invariants and adequately strengthen contracts across a large suite of programs

Lightweight Formal Verification in Classroom Instruction of Reasoning about Functional Code

In college courses dealing with material that requires mathematical rigor, the adoption of a machine-readable representation for formal arguments can be advantageous. Students can focus on a specific collection of constructs that are represented consistently. Examples and counterexamples can be evaluated. Assignments can be assembled and checked with the help of an automated formal reasoning system. However, usability and accessibility do not have a high priority and are not addressed sufficiently well in the design of many existing machine-readable representations and corresponding formal reasoning systems. In earlier work [Lap09], we attempt to address this broad problem by proposing several specific design criteria organized around the notion of a natural context: the sphere of awareness a working human user maintains of the relevant constructs, arguments, experiences, and background materials necessary to accomplish the task at hand. We report on our attempt to evaluate our proposed design criteria by deploying within the classroom a lightweight formal verification system designed according to these criteria. The lightweight formal verification system was used within the instruction of a common application of formal reasoning: proving by induction formal propositions about functional code. We present all of the formal reasoning examples and assignments considered during this deployment, most of which are drawn directly from an introductory text on functional programming. We demonstrate how the design of the system improves the effectiveness and understandability of the examples, and how it aids in the instruction of basic formal reasoning techniques. We make brief remarks about the practical and administrative implications of the system’s design from the perspectives of the student, the instructor, and the grader

Meta-F*: Proof Automation with SMT, Tactics, and Metaprograms

We introduce Meta-F*, a tactics and metaprogramming framework for the F* program verifier. The main novelty of Meta-F* is allowing the use of tactics and metaprogramming to discharge assertions not solvable by SMT, or to just simplify them into well-behaved SMT fragments. Plus, Meta-F* can be used to generate verified code automatically. Meta-F* is implemented as an F* effect, which, given the powerful effect system of F*, heavily increases code reuse and even enables the lightweight verification of metaprograms. Metaprograms can be either interpreted, or compiled to efficient native code that can be dynamically loaded into the F* type-checker and can interoperate with interpreted code. Evaluation on realistic case studies shows that Meta-F* provides substantial gains in proof development, efficiency, and robustness.Comment: Full version of ESOP'19 pape

Investigation, Development, and Evaluation of Performance Proving for Fault-tolerant Computers

A number of methodologies for verifying systems and computer based tools that assist users in verifying their systems were developed. These tools were applied to verify in part the SIFT ultrareliable aircraft computer. Topics covered included: STP theorem prover; design verification of SIFT; high level language code verification; assembly language level verification; numerical algorithm verification; verification of flight control programs; and verification of hardware logic

Virtual Evidence: A Constructive Semantics for Classical Logics

This article presents a computational semantics for classical logic using constructive type theory. Such semantics seems impossible because classical logic allows the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM), not accepted in constructive logic since it does not have computational meaning. However, the apparently oracular powers expressed in the LEM, that for any proposition P either it or its negation, not P, is true can also be explained in terms of constructive evidence that does not refer to "oracles for truth." Types with virtual evidence and the constructive impossibility of negative evidence provide sufficient semantic grounds for classical truth and have a simple computational meaning. This idea is formalized using refinement types, a concept of constructive type theory used since 1984 and explained here. A new axiom creating virtual evidence fully retains the constructive meaning of the logical operators in classical contexts. Key Words: classical logic, constructive logic, intuitionistic logic, propositions-as-types, constructive type theory, refinement types, double negation translation, computational content, virtual evidenc

Programming and Proving with Distributed Protocols

Distributed systems play a crucial role in modern infrastructure, but are notoriously difficult to implement correctly. This difficulty arises from two main challenges: (a) correctly implementing core system components (e.g., two-phase commit), so all their internal invariants hold, and (b) correctly composing standalone system components into functioning trustworthy applications (e.g., persistent storage built on top of a two-phase commit instance). Recent work has developed several approaches for addressing (a) by means of mechanically verifying implementations of core distributed components, but no methodology exists to address (b) by composing such verified components into larger verified applications. As a result, expensive verification efforts for key system components are not easily reusable, which hinders further verification efforts. In this paper, we present Disel, the first framework for implementation and compositional verification of distributed systems and their clients, all within the mechanized, foundational context of the Coq proof assistant. In Disel, users implement distributed systems using a domain specific language shallowly embedded in Coq and providing both high-level programming constructs as well as low-level communication primitives. Components of composite systems are specified in Disel as protocols, which capture system-specific logic and disentangle system definitions from implementation details. By virtue of Disel’s dependent type system, well-typed implementations always satisfy their protocols’ invariants and never go wrong, allowing users to verify system implementations interactively using Disel’s Hoare-style program logic, which extends state-of-the-art techniques for concurrency verification to the distributed setting. By virtue of the substitution principle and frame rule provided by Disel’s logic, system components can be composed leading to modular, reusable verified distributed systems. We describe Disel, illustrate its use with a series of examples, outline its logic and metatheory, and report on our experience using it as a framework for implementing, specifying, and verifying distributed systems