Disproving inductive entailments in separation logic via base pair approximation

We give a procedure for establishing the invalidity of logical entailments in the symbolic heap fragment of separation logic with user-defined inductive predicates, as used in program verification. This disproof procedure attempts to infer the existence of a countermodel to an entailment by comparing computable model summaries, a.k.a. bases (modified from earlier work), of its antecedent and consequent. Our method is sound and terminating, but necessarily incomplete. Experiments with the implementation of our disproof procedure indicate that it can correctly identify a substantial proportion of the invalid entailments that arise in practice, at reasonably low time cost. Accordingly, it can be used, e.g., to improve the output of theorem provers by returning “no” answers in addition to “yes” and “unknown” answers to entailment questions, and to speed up proof search or automated theory exploration by filtering out invalid entailments

Cyclic abduction of inductively defined safety and termination preconditions

We introduce cyclic abduction: a new method for automatically inferring safety and termination preconditions of heap manipulating while programs, expressed as inductive definitions in separation logic. Cyclic abduction essentially works by searching for a cyclic proof of the desired property, abducing definitional clauses of the precondition as necessary in order to advance the proof search process. We provide an implementation, Caber, of our cyclic abduction method, based on a suite of heuristically guided tactics. It is often able to automatically infer preconditions describing lists, trees, cyclic and composite structures which, in other tools, previously had to be supplied by hand

Biabduction (and related problems) in array separation logic

We investigate array separation logic (\mathsf {ASL}), a variant of symbolic-heap separation logic in which the data structures are either pointers or arrays, i.e., contiguous blocks of memory. This logic provides a language for compositional memory safety proofs of array programs. We focus on the biabduction problem for this logic, which has been established as the key to automatic specification inference at the industrial scale. We present an \mathsf {NP} decision procedure for biabduction in \mathsf {ASL}, and we also show that the problem of finding a consistent solution is \mathsf {NP}-hard. Along the way, we study satisfiability and entailment in \mathsf {ASL}, giving decision procedures and complexity bounds for both problems. We show satisfiability to be \mathsf {NP}-complete, and entailment to be decidable with high complexity. The surprising fact that biabduction is simpler than entailment is due to the fact that, as we show, the element of choice over biabduction solutions enables us to dramatically reduce the search space

Completeness for a First-order Abstract Separation Logic

Existing work on theorem proving for the assertion language of separation logic (SL) either focuses on abstract semantics which are not readily available in most applications of program verification, or on concrete models for which completeness is not possible. An important element in concrete SL is the points-to predicate which denotes a singleton heap. SL with the points-to predicate has been shown to be non-recursively enumerable. In this paper, we develop a first-order SL, called FOASL, with an abstracted version of the points-to predicate. We prove that FOASL is sound and complete with respect to an abstract semantics, of which the standard SL semantics is an instance. We also show that some reasoning principles involving the points-to predicate can be approximated as FOASL theories, thus allowing our logic to be used for reasoning about concrete program verification problems. We give some example theories that are sound with respect to different variants of separation logics from the literature, including those that are incompatible with Reynolds's semantics. In the experiment we demonstrate our FOASL based theorem prover which is able to handle a large fragment of separation logic with heap semantics as well as non-standard semantics.Comment: This is an extended version of the APLAS 2016 paper with the same titl

Automatically Verifying Temporal Properties of Pointer Programs with Cyclic Proof

In this article, we investigate the automated verification of temporal properties of heap-aware programs. We propose a deductive reasoning approach based on cyclic proof. Judgements in our proof system assert that a program has a certain temporal property over memory state assertions, written in separation logic with user-defined inductive predicates, while the proof rules of the system unfold temporal modalities and predicate definitions as well as symbolically executing programs. Cyclic proofs in our system are, as usual, finite proof graphs subject to a natural, decidable soundness condition, encoding a form of proof by infinite descent. We present a proof system tailored to proving CTL properties of nondeterministic pointer programs, and then adapt this system to handle fair execution conditions. We show both versions of the system to be sound, and provide an implementation of each in the Cyclist theorem prover, yielding an automated tool that is capable of automatically discovering proofs of (fair) temporal properties of pointer programs. Experimental evaluation of our tool indicates that our approach is viable, and offers an interesting alternative to traditional model checking techniques

Model checking for symbolic-heap separation logic with inductive predicates

We investigate the model checking problem for symbolic-heap separation logic with user-defined inductive predicates, i.e., the problem of checking that a given stack-heap memory state satisfies a given formula in this language, as arises e.g. in software testing or runtime verification. First, we show that the problem is decidable; specifically, we present a bottom-up fixed point algorithm that decides the problem and runs in exponential time in the size of the problem instance. Second, we show that, while model checking for the full language is EXPTIME-complete, the problem becomes NP-complete or PTIME-solvable when we impose natural syntactic restrictions on the schemata defining the inductive predicates. We additionally present NP and PTIME algorithms for these restricted fragments. Finally, we report on the experimental performance of our procedures on a variety of specifications extracted from programs, exercising multiple combinations of syntactic restrictions

Disproving inductive entailments in separation logic via base pair approximation

We give a procedure for establishing the invalidity of logical entailments in the symbolic heap fragment of separation logic with user-defined inductive predicates, as used in program verification. This disproof procedure attempts to infer the existence of a countermodel to an entailment by comparing computable model summaries, a.k.a. bases (modified from earlier work), of its antecedent and consequent. Our method is sound and terminating, but necessarily incomplete. Experiments with the implementation of our disproof procedure indicate that it can correctly identify a substantial proportion of the invalid entailments that arise in practice, at reasonably low time cost. Accordingly, it can be used, e.g., to improve the output of theorem provers by returning “no” answers in addition to “yes” and “unknown” answers to entailment questions, and to speed up proof search or automated theory exploration by filtering out invalid entailments

Model checking for symbolic-heap separation logic with inductive predicates

We investigate the *model checking* problem for symbolic-heap separation logic with user-defined inductive predicates, i.e., the problem of checking that a given stack-heap memory state satisfies a given formula in this language, as arises e.g. in software testing or runtime verification. First, we show that the problem is *decidable*; specifically, we present a bottom-up fixed point algorithm that decides the problem and runs in exponential time in the size of the problem instance. Second, we show that, while model checking for the full language is EXPTIME-complete, the problem becomes NP-complete or PTIME-solvable when we impose natural syntactic restrictions on the schemata defining the inductive predicates. We additionally present NP and PTIME algorithms for these restricted fragments. Finally, we report on the experimental performance of our procedures on a variety of specifications extracted from programs, exercising multiple combinations of syntactic restrictions

A generic cyclic theorem prover

We describe the design and implementation of an automated theorem prover realising a fully general notion of cyclic proof. Our tool, called CYCLIST, is able to construct proofs obeying a very general cycle scheme in which leaves may be linked to any other matching node in the proof, and to verify the general, global infinitary condition on such proof objects ensuring their soundness. CYCLIST is based on a new, generic theory of cyclic proofs that can be instantiated to a wide variety of logics. We have developed three such concrete instantiations, based on: (a) first-order logic with inductive definitions; (b) entailments of pure separation logic; and (c) Hoare-style termination proofs for pointer programs. Experiments run on these instantiations indicate that CYCLIST offers significant potential as a future platform for inductive theorem proving. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012