Hoare-Style Logic for Unstructured Programs

Abstract

Enabling Hoare-style reasoning for low-level code is attractive since it opens the way to regain structure and modularity in a domain where structure is essentially absent. The field, however, has not yet arrived at a fully satisfactory solution, in the sense of avoiding restrictions on control flow (important for compiler optimization), controlling access to intermediate program points (important for modularity), and supporting total correctness. Proposals in the literature support some of these properties, but a solution that meets them all is yet to be found. We introduce the novel Hoare-style program logic LA, which interprets postconditions relative to program points when these are first encountered. The logic can support both partial and total correctness, derive contracts for arbitrary control flow, and allows one to freely choose decomposition strategy during verification while avoiding step-indexed approximations and global invariants. The logic can be instantiated for a variety of concrete instruction set architectures and intermediate languages. The rules of LA have been verified in the interactive theorem prover HOL4 and integrated with the toolbox HolBA for semi-automated program verification, making it applicable to the ARMv6 and ARMv8 instruction sets.

Owicki-Gries Reasoning for C11 Programs with Relaxed Dependencies

“…1 for an ARM processor produces code that does exhibit the relaxed behaviour. The logic of Lundberg et al [20] correctly discards many of this spurious program ordering, but it does not handle concurrency. We provide an operational semantics of C++ that solves the thin air problem, where prior attempts use simplifying assumptions like those of prior logics [7,21].…”

A Complete Approach to Loop Verification with Invariants and Summaries

“…Recent work on the verification of unstructured assembly programs [41] notes that a negative loop test ¬t cannot be assumed by default in such a setting, as it is the case with the conditions Def. 4.…”