Matching Logic

This paper presents matching logic, a first-order logic (FOL) variant for specifying and reasoning about structure by means of patterns and pattern matching. Its sentences, the patterns, are constructed using variables, symbols, connectives and quantifiers, but no difference is made between function and predicate symbols. In models, a pattern evaluates into a power-set domain (the set of values that match it), in contrast to FOL where functions and predicates map into a regular domain. Matching logic uniformly generalizes several logical frameworks important for program analysis, such as: propositional logic, algebraic specification, FOL with equality, modal logic, and separation logic. Patterns can specify separation requirements at any level in any program configuration, not only in the heaps or stores, without any special logical constructs for that: the very nature of pattern matching is that if two structures are matched as part of a pattern, then they can only be spatially separated. Like FOL, matching logic can also be translated into pure predicate logic with equality, at the same time admitting its own sound and complete proof system. A practical aspect of matching logic is that FOL reasoning with equality remains sound, so off-the-shelf provers and SMT solvers can be used for matching logic reasoning. Matching logic is particularly well-suited for reasoning about programs in programming languages that have an operational semantics, but it is not limited to this

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

Program analysis is harder than verification: A computability perspective

We study from a computability perspective static program analysis, namely detecting sound program assertions, and verification, namely sound checking of program assertions. We first design a general computability model for domains of program assertions and correspond- ing program analysers and verifiers. Next, we formalize and prove an instantiation of Rice\u2019s theorem for static program analysis and verifica- tion. Then, within this general model, we provide and show a precise statement of the popular belief that program analysis is a harder prob- lem than program verification: we prove that for finite domains of pro- gram assertions, program analysis and verification are equivalent prob- lems, while for infinite domains, program analysis is strictly harder than verification

Proving Differential Privacy with Shadow Execution

Recent work on formal verification of differential privacy shows a trend toward usability and expressiveness -- generating a correctness proof of sophisticated algorithm while minimizing the annotation burden on programmers. Sometimes, combining those two requires substantial changes to program logics: one recent paper is able to verify Report Noisy Max automatically, but it involves a complex verification system using customized program logics and verifiers. In this paper, we propose a new proof technique, called shadow execution, and embed it into a language called ShadowDP. ShadowDP uses shadow execution to generate proofs of differential privacy with very few programmer annotations and without relying on customized logics and verifiers. In addition to verifying Report Noisy Max, we show that it can verify a new variant of Sparse Vector that reports the gap between some noisy query answers and the noisy threshold. Moreover, ShadowDP reduces the complexity of verification: for all of the algorithms we have evaluated, type checking and verification in total takes at most 3 seconds, while prior work takes minutes on the same algorithms.Comment: 23 pages, 12 figures, PLDI'1

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