The VerCors tool for verification of concurrent programs

The VerCors tool implements thread-modular static verification of concurrent programs, annotated with functional properties and heap access permissions. The tool supports both generic multithreaded and vector-based programming models. In particular, it can verify multithreaded programs written in Java, specified with JML extended with separation logic. It can also verify parallelizable programs written in a toy language that supports the characteristic features of OpenCL. The tool verifies programs by first encoding the specified program into a much simpler programming language and then applying the Chalice verifier to the simplified program. In this paper we discuss both the implementation of the tool and the features of its specification language

Verification of Shared-Reading Synchronisers

Synchronisation classes are an important building block for shared memory concurrent programs. Thus to reason about such programs, it is important to be able to verify the implementation of these synchronisation classes, considering atomic operations as the synchronisation primitives on which the implementations are built. For synchronisation classes controlling exclusive access to a shared resource, such as locks, a technique has been proposed to reason about their behaviour. This paper proposes a technique to verify implementations of both exclusive access and shared-reading synchronisers. We use permission-based Separation Logic to describe the behaviour of the main atomic operations, and the basis for our technique is formed by a specification for class AtomicInteger, which is commonly used to implement synchronisation classes in java.util.concurrent. To demonstrate the applicability of our approach, we mechanically verify the implementation of various synchronisation classes like Semaphore, CountDownLatch and Lock.Comment: In Proceedings MeTRiD 2018, arXiv:1806.0933

Witnessing the elimination of magic wands

This paper discusses the use and verification of 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. We show how the magic wand operator is suitable 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). Most separation-logic-based 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. 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

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

Stepwise refinement of heap-manipulating code in Chalice

Stepwise refinement is a well-studied technique for developing a program from an abstract description to a concrete implementation. This paper describes a system with automated tool support for refinement, powered by a state-of-the-art verification engine that uses an SMT solver. Unlike previous refinement systems, users of the presented system interact only via declarations in the programming language. Another aspect of the system is that it accounts for dynamically allocated objects in the heap, so that data representations in an abstract program can be refined into ones that use more objects. Finally, the system uses a language with familiar imperative features, including sequential composition, loops, and recursive calls, offers a syntax with skeletons for describing program changes between refinements, and provides a mechanism for supplying witnesses when refining non-deterministic programs

Specification and Verification of Shared-Memory Concurrent Programs

Ph.DDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPH