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

Omnisemantics: Smooth Handling of Nondeterminism

This paper gives an in-depth presentation of the omni-big-step and omni-small-step styles of semantic judgments. These styles describe operational semantics by relating starting states to sets of outcomes rather than to individual outcomes. A single derivation of these semantics for a particular starting state and program describes all possible nondeterministic executions (hence the name "omni"), whereas in traditional small-step and big-step semantics, each derivation only talks about one single execution. This restructuring allows for straightforward modeling of languages featuring both nondeterminism and undefined behavior. Specifically, omnisemantics inherently assert safety, i.e. they guarantee that none of the execution branches gets stuck, while traditional semantics need either a separate judgment or additional error markers to specify safety in the presence of nondeterminism.Omnisemantics can be understood as an inductively defined weakest-precondition semantics (or more generally, predicate-transformer semantics) that does not involve invariants for loops and recursion, but instead uses unrolling rules like in traditional small-step and big-step semantics. Omnisemantics have already been used in the past, but we believe that it has been under-appreciated and that it deserves a well-motivated, extensive and pedagogical presentation of its benefits. We also explore several novel aspects associated with these semantics, in particular their use in type-soundness proofs for lambda calculi, partial-correctness reasoning, and forward proofs of compiler correctness for terminating but potentially nondeterministic programs being compiled to nondeterministic target languages. All results in this paper are formalized in Coq

Abstract Execution: Automatically Proving Infinitely Many Programs

Abstract programs contain schematic placeholders representing potentially infinitely many concrete programs. They naturally occur in multiple areas of computer science concerned with correctness: rule-based compilation and optimization, code refactoring and other source-to-source transformations, program synthesis, Correctness-by-Construction, and more. Mechanized correctness arguments about abstract programs are frequently conducted in interactive environments. While this permits expressing arbitrary properties quantifying over programs, substantial effort has to be invested to prove them manually by writing proof scripts. Existing approaches to proving abstract program properties automatically, on the other hand, lack expressiveness. Frequently, they only support placeholders representing all possible instantiations; in some cases, minor refinements are supported. This thesis bridges that gap by presenting Abstract Execution (AE), an automatic reasoning technique for universal behavioral properties of abstract programs. The restriction to universal (no existential quantification) and behavioral (not addressing internal structure) properties excludes certain applications; however, it is the key to automation. Our logic for Abstract Execution uses abstract state changes to represent unknown effects on local variables and the heap, and models abrupt completion by symbolic branching. In this logic, schematic placeholders have names: It is possible to re-use them at several places, representing the same program elements in potentially different contexts. Furthermore, the represented concrete programs can be constrained by an expressive specification language, which is a unique feature of AE. We use the theory of dynamic frames to scale between full abstraction and total precision of frame specifications, and support fine-grained pre- and postconditions for (abrupt) completion. We implemented AE by extending the program verifier KeY. Specifically for relational verification of abstract Java programs, we developed REFINITY, a graphical KeY frontend. We used REFINITY it in our signature application of AE: to model well-known statement-level refactoring techniques and prove their conditional safety. Several yet undocumented behavioral preconditions for safe refactorings originated in this case study, which is one of very few attempts to statically prove behavioral correctness of statement-level refactorings, and the only one to cover them to that extent. AE extends Symbolic Execution (SE) for abstract programs. As a foundational contribution, we propose a general framework for SE based on the semantics of symbolic states. It natively integrates state merging by supporting m-to-n transitions. We define two orthogonal correctness notions, exhaustiveness and precision, and formally prove their relation to program proving and bug detection. Finally, we introduce Modal Trace Logic (MTL), a trace-based logic to represent a variety of different program verification tasks, especially for relational verification. It is a “plug-in” logic which can be integrated on-demand with formal languages that have a trace semantics. The core of MTL is the trace modality, which allows expressing that a specification approximates an implementation after a trace abstraction step. We demonstrate the versatility of this approach by formalizing concrete verification tasks in MTL, ranging from functional verification over program synthesis to program evolution. To reason about MTL problems, we translate them to symbolic traces. We suggest Symbolic Trace Logic (STL), which comes with a sequent calculus to prove symbolic trace inclusions. This requires checking symbolic states for subsumption; to that end, we provide two generally useful notions of symbolic state subsumption. This framework relates as follows to the other parts of this thesis: We use the language of abstract programs to express synthesis and compilation, which connects MTL to AE. Moreover, symbolic states of STL are based on our framework for SE

The 1st Verified Software Competition, Extended Experience Report

We, the organizers and participants, report our experiences from the 1st Veried Software Competition, held in August 2010 in Edinburgh at the VSTTE 2010 conferenc

Verifying Programs with Logic and Extended Proof Rules: Deep Embedding v.s. Shallow Embedding

Many foundational program verification tools have been developed to build machine-checked program correctness proofs, a majority of which are based on Hoare logic. Their program logics, their assertion languages, and their underlying programming languages can be formalized by either a shallow embedding or a deep embedding. Tools like Iris and early versions of Verified Software Toolchain (VST) choose different shallow embeddings to formalize their program logics. But the pros and cons of these different embeddings were not yet well studied. Therefore, we want to study the impact of the program logic's embedding on logic's proof rules in this paper. This paper considers a set of useful extended proof rules, and four different logic embeddings: one deep embedding and three common shallow embeddings. We prove the validity of these extended rules under these embeddings and discuss their main challenges. Furthermore, we propose a method to lift existing shallowly embedded logics to deeply embedded ones to greatly simplify proofs of extended rules in specific proof systems. We evaluate our results on two existing verification tools. We lift the originally shallowly embedded VST to our deeply embedded VST to support extended rules, and we implement Iris-CF and deeply embedded Iris-Imp based on the Iris framework to evaluate our theory in real verification projects