An Infinite Needle in a Finite Haystack: Finding Infinite Counter-Models in Deductive Verification

First-order logic, and quantifiers in particular, are widely used in deductive verification. Quantifiers are essential for describing systems with unbounded domains, but prove difficult for automated solvers. Significant effort has been dedicated to finding quantifier instantiations that establish unsatisfiability, thus ensuring validity of a system's verification conditions. However, in many cases the formulas are satisfiable: this is often the case in intermediate steps of the verification process. For such cases, existing tools are limited to finding finite models as counterexamples. Yet, some quantified formulas are satisfiable but only have infinite models. Such infinite counter-models are especially typical when first-order logic is used to approximate inductive definitions such as linked lists or the natural numbers. The inability of solvers to find infinite models makes them diverge in these cases. In this paper, we tackle the problem of finding such infinite models. These models allow the user to identify and fix bugs in the modeling of the system and its properties. Our approach consists of three parts. First, we introduce symbolic structures as a way to represent certain infinite models. Second, we describe an effective model finding procedure that symbolically explores a given family of symbolic structures. Finally, we identify a new decidable fragment of first-order logic that extends and subsumes the many-sorted variant of EPR, where satisfiable formulas always have a model representable by a symbolic structure within a known family. We evaluate our approach on examples from the domains of distributed consensus protocols and of heap-manipulating programs. Our implementation quickly finds infinite counter-models that demonstrate the source of verification failures in a simple way, while SMT solvers and theorem provers such as Z3, cvc5, and Vampire diverge

Leaf: Modularity for Temporary Sharing in Separation Logic (Extended Version)

In concurrent verification, separation logic provides a strong story for handling both resources that are owned exclusively and resources that are shared persistently (i.e., forever). However, the situation is more complicated for temporarily shared state, where state might be shared and then later reclaimed as exclusive. We believe that a framework for temporarily-shared state should meet two key goals not adequately met by existing techniques. One, it should allow and encourage users to verify new sharing strategies. Two, it should provide an abstraction where users manipulate shared state in a way agnostic to the means with which it is shared. We present Leaf, a library in the Iris separation logic which accomplishes both of these goals by introducing a novel operator, which we call guarding, that allows one proposition to represent a shared version of another. We demonstrate that Leaf meets these two goals through a modular case study: we verify a reader-writer lock that supports shared state, and a hash table built on top of it that uses shared state

Counterexample-Guided Prophecy for Model Checking Modulo the Theory of Arrays

We develop a framework for model checking infinite-state systems by automatically augmenting them with auxiliary variables, enabling quantifier-free induction proofs for systems that would otherwise require quantified invariants. We combine this mechanism with a counterexample-guided abstraction refinement scheme for the theory of arrays. Our framework can thus, in many cases, reduce inductive reasoning with quantifiers and arrays to quantifier-free and array-free reasoning. We evaluate the approach on a wide set of benchmarks from the literature. The results show that our implementation often outperforms state-of-the-art tools, demonstrating its practical potential.Comment: 23 pages, 1 figure, 1 table, extended version of paper to be published in International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems 202

Paxos Consensus, Deconstructed and Abstracted (Extended Version)

Lamport's Paxos algorithm is a classic consensus protocol for state machine replication in environments that admit crash failures. Many versions of Paxos exploit the protocol's intrinsic properties for the sake of gaining better run-time performance, thus widening the gap between the original description of the algorithm, which was proven correct, and its real-world implementations. In this work, we address the challenge of specifying and verifying complex Paxos-based systems by (a) devising composable specifications for implementations of Paxos's single-decree version, and (b) engineering disciplines to reason about protocol-aware, semantics-preserving optimisations to single-decree Paxos. In a nutshell, our approach elaborates on the deconstruction of single-decree Paxos by Boichat et al. We provide novel non-deterministic specifications for each module in the deconstruction and prove that the implementations refine the corresponding specifications, such that the proofs of the modules that remain unchanged can be reused across different implementations. We further reuse this result and show how to obtain a verified implementation of Multi-Paxos from a verified implementation of single-decree Paxos, by a series of novel protocol-aware transformations of the network semantics, which we prove to be behaviour-preserving.Comment: Accepted for publication in the 27th European Symposium on Programming (ESOP'18

How to Win First-Order Safety Games

First-order (FO) transition systems have recently attracted attention for the verification of parametric systems such as network protocols, software-defined networks or multi-agent workflows like conference management systems. Functional correctness or noninterference of these systems have conveniently been formulated as safety or hypersafety properties, respectively. In this article, we take the step from verification to synthesis---tackling the question whether it is possible to automatically synthesize predicates to enforce safety or hypersafety properties like noninterference. For that, we generalize FO transition systems to FO safety games. For FO games with monadic predicates only, we provide a complete classification into decidable and undecidable cases. For games with non-monadic predicates, we concentrate on universal first-order invariants, since these are sufficient to express a large class of properties---for example noninterference. We identify a non-trivial sub-class where invariants can be proven inductive and FO winning strategies be effectively constructed. We also show how the extraction of weakest FO winning strategies can be reduced to SO quantifier elimination itself. We demonstrate the usefulness of our approach by automatically synthesizing nontrivial FO specifications of messages in a leader election protocol as well as for paper assignment in a conference management system to exclude unappreciated disclosure of reports