Specifying and Verifying Concurrent Algorithms with Histories and Subjectivity

We present a lightweight approach to Hoare-style specifications for fine-grained concurrency, based on a notion of time-stamped histories that abstractly capture atomic changes in the program state. Our key observation is that histories form a partial commutative monoid, a structure fundamental for representation of concurrent resources. This insight provides us with a unifying mechanism that allows us to treat histories just like heaps in separation logic. For example, both are subject to the same assertion logic and inference rules (e.g., the frame rule). Moreover, the notion of ownership transfer, which usually applies to heaps, has an equivalent in histories. It can be used to formally represent helping---an important design pattern for concurrent algorithms whereby one thread can execute code on behalf of another. Specifications in terms of histories naturally abstract granularity, in the sense that sophisticated fine-grained algorithms can be given the same specifications as their simplified coarse-grained counterparts, making them equally convenient for client-side reasoning. We illustrate our approach on a number of examples and validate all of them in Coq.Comment: 17 page

Concurrent Data Structures Linked in Time

Arguments about correctness of a concurrent data structure are typically carried out by using the notion of linearizability and specifying the linearization points of the data structure's procedures. Such arguments are often cumbersome as the linearization points' position in time can be dynamic (depend on the interference, run-time values and events from the past, or even future), non-local (appear in procedures other than the one considered), and whose position in the execution trace may only be determined after the considered procedure has already terminated. In this paper we propose a new method, based on a separation-style logic, for reasoning about concurrent objects with such linearization points. We embrace the dynamic nature of linearization points, and encode it as part of the data structure's auxiliary state, so that it can be dynamically modified in place by auxiliary code, as needed when some appropriate run-time event occurs. We name the idea linking-in-time, because it reduces temporal reasoning to spatial reasoning. For example, modifying a temporal position of a linearization point can be modeled similarly to a pointer update in separation logic. Furthermore, the auxiliary state provides a convenient way to concisely express the properties essential for reasoning about clients of such concurrent objects. We illustrate the method by verifying (mechanically in Coq) an intricate optimal snapshot algorithm due to Jayanti, as well as some clients

Steps in modular specifications for concurrent modules

© 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.The specification of a concurrent program module is a difficult problem. The specifications must be strong enough to enable reasoning about the intended clients without reference to the underlying module implementation. We survey a range of verification techniques for specifying concurrent modules, in particular highlighting four key concepts: auxiliary state, interference abstraction, resource ownership and atomicity. We show how these concepts combine to provide powerful approaches to specifying concurrent modules

Hoare-style Specifications as Correctness Conditions for Non-linearizable Concurrent Objects

Designing scalable concurrent objects, which can be efficiently used on multicore processors, often requires one to abandon standard specification techniques, such as linearizability, in favor of more relaxed consistency requirements. However, the variety of alternative correctness conditions makes it difficult to choose which one to employ in a particular case, and to compose them when using objects whose behaviors are specified via different criteria. The lack of syntactic verification methods for most of these criteria poses challenges in their systematic adoption and application. In this paper, we argue for using Hoare-style program logics as an alternative and uniform approach for specification and compositional formal verification of safety properties for concurrent objects and their client programs. Through a series of case studies, we demonstrate how an existing program logic for concurrency can be employed off-the-shelf to capture important state and history invariants, allowing one to explicitly quantify over interference of environment threads and provide intuitive and expressive Hoare-style specifications for several non-linearizable concurrent objects that were previously specified only via dedicated correctness criteria. We illustrate the adequacy of our specifications by verifying a number of concurrent client scenarios, that make use of the previously specified concurrent objects, capturing the essence of such correctness conditions as concurrency-aware linearizability, quiescent, and quantitative quiescent consistency. All examples described in this paper are verified mechanically in Coq.Comment: 18 page

ReLoC Reloaded:A Mechanized Relational Logic for Fine-Grained Concurrency and Logical Atomicity

We present a new version of ReLoC: a relational separation logic for proving refinements of programs with higher-order state, fine-grained concurrency, polymorphism and recursive types. The core of ReLoC is its refinement judgment $e \precsim e' : \tau$, which states that a program $e$ refines a program $e'$ at type $\tau$. ReLoC provides type-directed structural rules and symbolic execution rules in separation-logic style for manipulating the judgment, whereas in prior work on refinements for languages with higher-order state and concurrency, such proofs were carried out by unfolding the judgment into its definition in the model. ReLoC's abstract proof rules make it simpler to carry out refinement proofs, and enable us to generalize the notion of logically atomic specifications to the relational case, which we call logically atomic relational specifications. We build ReLoC on top of the Iris framework for separation logic in Coq, allowing us to leverage features of Iris to prove soundness of ReLoC, and to carry out refinement proofs in ReLoC. We implement tactics for interactive proofs in ReLoC, allowing us to mechanize several case studies in Coq, and thereby demonstrate the practicality of ReLoC. ReLoC Reloaded extends ReLoC (LICS'18) with various technical improvements, a new Coq mechanization, and support for Iris's prophecy variables. The latter allows us to carry out refinement proofs that involve reasoning about the program's future. We also expand ReLoC's notion of logically atomic relational specifications with a new flavor based on the HOCAP pattern by Svendsen et al

A Concurrent Logical Relation

Abstract—We present a logical relation for showing the correctness of program transformations based on a new type-and-effect system for a concurrent extension of an ML-like language with higher-order functions, higher-order store and dynamic memory allocation. We show how to use our model to verify a number of interesting program transformations that rely on effect annotations. In particular, we prove a Parallelization Theorem, which expresses when it is sound to run two expressions in parallel instead of sequentially. The conditions are expressed solely in terms of the types and effects of the expressions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first such result for a concurrent higher-order language with higher-order store and dynamic memory allocation. I

Modular termination verification for non-blocking concurrency

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016.We present Total-TaDA, a program logic for verifying the total correctness of concurrent programs: that such programs both terminate and produce the correct result. With Total-TaDA, we can specify constraints on a thread’s concurrent environment that are necessary to guarantee termination. This allows us to verify total correctness for nonblocking algorithms, e.g. a counter and a stack. Our specifications can express lock- and wait-freedom. More generally, they can express that one operation cannot impede the progress of another, a new non-blocking property we call non-impedance. Moreover, our approach is modular. We can verify the operations of a module independently, and build up modules on top of each other