Lightweight Support for Magic Wands in an Automatic Verifier (Artifact)

This artifact is based on Silicon, which is an automatic verification tool for programs written in the Silver Intermediate Verification Language. Silver is designed to natively support permission-based reasoning, in the style of separation logic and similar approaches. Our extension of Silicon provides support for specification and verification of programs using the magic wand operator, which can be used to represent ways to exchange views on the program state, or to represent partial versions of data structures. Our implementation is a backwards-compatible extension of the basic tool, and is provided along with a test suite of examples and regressions in a VirtualBox image. Instructions for running our tool on these (and user-defined) examples are provided in the image, to allow users to experiment with the verifier

Sound Automation of Magic Wands (extended version)

The magic wand $\mathbin{-\!\!*}$ (also called separating implication) is a separation logic connective commonly used to specify properties of partial data structures, for instance during iterative traversals. A footprint of a magic wand formula $A \mathbin{-\!\!*} B$ is a state that, combined with any state in which $A$ holds, yields a state in which $B$ holds. The key challenge of proving a magic wand (also called packaging a wand) is to find such a footprint. Existing package algorithms either have a high annotation overhead or, as we show in this paper, are unsound. We present a formal framework that precisely characterises a wide design space of possible package algorithms applicable to a large class of separation logics. We prove in Isabelle/HOL that our formal framework is sound and complete, and use it to develop a novel package algorithm that offers competitive automation and is sound. Moreover, we present a novel, restricted definition of wands and prove in Isabelle/HOL that it is possible to soundly combine fractions of such wands, which is not the case for arbitrary wands. We have implemented our techniques for the Viper language, and demonstrate that they are effective in practice.Comment: Extended version of CAV 2022 publicatio

Witnessing the elimination of magic wands

This paper discusses static verification of programs that have been specified using separation logic with magic wands. Magic wands are used to specify incomplete resources in separation logic, i.e., if missing resources are provided, a magic wand allows one to exchange these for the completed resources. One of the applications of the magic wand operator is to describe loop invariants for algorithms that traverse a data structure, such as the imperative version of the tree delete problem (Challenge 3 from the VerifyThis@FM2012 Program Verification Competition), which is the motivating example for our work.\ud \ud Most separation logic based static verification tools do not provide support for magic wands, possibly because validity of formulas containing the magic wand is, by itself, undecidable. To avoid this problem, in our approach the program annotator has to provide a witness for the magic wand, thus circumventing undecidability due to the use of magic wands. A witness is an object that encodes both instructions for the permission exchange that is specified by the magic wand and the extra resources needed during that exchange. We show how this witness information is used to encode a specification with magic wands as a specification without magic wands. Concretely, this approach is used in the VerCors tool set: annotated Java programs are encoded as Chalice programs. Chalice then further translates the program to BoogiePL, where appropriate proof obligations are generated. Besides our encoding of magic wands, we also discuss the encoding of other aspects of annotated Java programs into Chalice, and in particular, the encoding of abstract predicates with permission parameters. We illustrate our approach on the tree delete algorithm, and on the verification of an iterator of a linked list

On Temporal and Separation Logics

International audienceThere exist many success stories about the introduction of logics designed for the formal verification of computer systems. Obviously, the introduction of temporal logics to computer science has been a major step in the development of model-checking techniques. More recently, separation logics extend Hoare logic for reasoning about programs with dynamic data structures, leading to many contributions on theory, tools and applications. In this talk, we illustrate how several features of separation logics, for instance the key concept of separation, are related to similar notions in temporal logics. We provide formal correspondences (when possible) and present an overview of related works from the literature. This is also the opportunity to present bridges between well-known temporal logics and more recent separation logics

Verification-Preserving Inlining in Automatic Separation Logic Verifiers (extended version)

Bounded verification has proved useful to detect bugs and to increase confidence in the correctness of a program. In contrast to unbounded verification, reasoning about calls via (bounded) inlining and about loops via (bounded) unrolling does not require method specifications and loop invariants and, therefore, reduces the annotation overhead to the bare minimum, namely specifications of the properties to be verified. For verifiers based on traditional program logics, verification is preserved by inlining (and unrolling): successful unbounded verification of a program w.r.t. some annotation implies successful verification of the inlined program. That is, any error detected in the inlined program reveals a true error in the original program. However, this essential property might not hold for automatic separation logic verifiers such as Caper, GRASShopper, RefinedC, Steel, VeriFast, and verifiers based on Viper. In this setting, inlining generally changes the resources owned by method executions, which may affect automatic proof search algorithms and introduce spurious errors. In this paper, we present the first technique for verification-preserving inlining in automatic separation logic verifiers. We identify a semantic condition on programs and prove in Isabelle/HOL that it ensures verification-preserving inlining for state-of-the-art automatic separation logic verifiers. We also prove a dual result: successful verification of the inlined program ensures that there are method and loop annotations that enable the verification of the original program for bounded executions. To check our semantic condition automatically, we present two approximations that can be checked syntactically and with a program verifier, respectively. We implement these checks in Viper and demonstrate that they are effective for non-trivial examples from different verifiers

Symbolic execution proofs for higher order store programs

Higher order store programs are programs which store, manipulate and invoke code at runtime. Important examples of higher order store programs include operating system kernels which dynamically load and unload kernel modules. Yet conventional Hoare logics, which provide no means of representing changes to code at runtime, are not applicable to such programs. Recently, however, new logics using nested Hoare triples have addressed this shortcoming. In this paper we describe, from top to bottom, a sound semi-automated verification system for higher order store programs. We give a programming language with higher order store features, define an assertion language with nested triples for specifying such programs, and provide reasoning rules for proving programs correct. We then present in full our algorithms for automatically constructing correctness proofs. In contrast to earlier work, the language also includes ordinary (fixed) procedures and mutable local variables, making it easy to model programs which perform dynamic loading and other higher order store operations. We give an operational semantics for programs and a step-indexed interpretation of assertions, and use these to show soundness of our reasoning rules, which include a deep frame rule which allows more modular proofs. Our automated reasoning algorithms include a scheme for separation logic based symbolic execution of programs, and automated provers for solving various kinds of entailment problems. The latter are presented in the form of sets of derived proof rules which are constrained enough to be read as a proof search algorithm

Computer Aided Verification

This open access two-volume set LNCS 13371 and 13372 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 34rd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV 2022, which was held in Haifa, Israel, in August 2022. The 40 full papers presented together with 9 tool papers and 2 case studies were carefully reviewed and selected from 209 submissions. The papers were organized in the following topical sections: Part I: Invited papers; formal methods for probabilistic programs; formal methods for neural networks; software Verification and model checking; hyperproperties and security; formal methods for hardware, cyber-physical, and hybrid systems. Part II: Probabilistic techniques; automata and logic; deductive verification and decision procedures; machine learning; synthesis and concurrency. This is an open access book

On Using VeriFast, VerCors, Plural, and KeY to Check Object Usage

Marco Giunti: Partially supported by Dstl, reference: ACC2028868. Publisher Copyright: © João Mota Marco Giunti and António Ravara;Typestates are a notion of behavioral types that describe protocols for stateful objects, specifying the available methods for each state. Ensuring methods are called in the correct order (protocol compliance), and that, if and when the program terminates, all objects are in the final state (protocol completion) is crucial to write better and safer programs. Objects of this kind are commonly shared among different clients or stored in collections, which may also be shared. However, statically checking protocol compliance and completion when objects are shared is challenging. To evaluate the support given by state of the art verification tools in checking the correct use of shared objects with protocol, we present a survey on four tools for Java: VeriFast, VerCors, Plural, and KeY. We describe the implementation of a file reader, linked-list, and iterator, check for each tool its ability to statically guarantee protocol compliance and completion, even when objects are shared in collections, and evaluate the programmer’s effort in making the code acceptable to these tools. With this study, we motivate the need for lightweight methods to verify the presented kinds of programs.publishersversionpublishe

Predicate Abstraction for Linked Data Structures

We present Alias Refinement Types (ART), a new approach to the verification of correctness properties of linked data structures. While there are many techniques for checking that a heap-manipulating program adheres to its specification, they often require that the programmer annotate the behavior of each procedure, for example, in the form of loop invariants and pre- and post-conditions. Predicate abstraction would be an attractive abstract domain for performing invariant inference, existing techniques are not able to reason about the heap with enough precision to verify functional properties of data structure manipulating programs. In this paper, we propose a technique that lifts predicate abstraction to the heap by factoring the analysis of data structures into two orthogonal components: (1) Alias Types, which reason about the physical shape of heap structures, and (2) Refinement Types, which use simple predicates from an SMT decidable theory to capture the logical or semantic properties of the structures. We prove ART sound by translating types into separation logic assertions, thus translating typing derivations in ART into separation logic proofs. We evaluate ART by implementing a tool that performs type inference for an imperative language, and empirically show, using a suite of data-structure benchmarks, that ART requires only 21% of the annotations needed by other state-of-the-art verification techniques