Natural proofs for data structure manipulation in C using separation logic

PekEdgar,; QiuXiaokang,; MadhusudanP.,

doi:10.1145/2666356.2594325

Cited by 27 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…3.7) and structural annotations (all other auxiliary annotations). Suggestions roughly correspond to Pek et al's "level-C annotations" [PQM14], in that they are hints to help AutoProof verify more quickly. Out of all EiffelBase2 specifications, 12% are suggestions (mostly inv assertions); among structural annotations, ghost code (11%) and loop invariants (7%) are the most significant kinds.…”

Section: Kinds Of Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Another major difference with our work is that Zee et al do not always consider generalpurpose implementations (for example, hash tables only offer reference-based key comparison, which is too limiting in practice), nor do they target a unitarily designed library. Pek et al's natural proofs [PQM14] do not require proof scripts and drastically reduce the annotation burden by inferring auxiliary (low-level) annotations; the resulting annotation overhead is slightly lower than ours (Sect. 4.2).…”

Section: Interactive Verification Nanevski Et Al [Nmsmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Pek et al [PQM14] suggest classifying specifications according to their level of abstraction with respect to the underlying verification process. A natural classification for EiffelBase2 specifications is into requirements (model attributes, method pre/post/frame specifications, class invariants, and ghost functions directly used by them) and auxiliary annotations (loop invariants and variants, intermediate assertions, lemmas, and ghost code not directly used in requirements).…”

Section: Kinds Of Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A fully verified container library

Polikarpova¹,

Tschannen

Furia

2018

Form. Asp. Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The comprehensive functionality and nontrivial design of realistic general-purpose container libraries pose challenges to formal verification that go beyond those of individual benchmark problems mainly targeted by the state of the art. We present our experience verifying the full functional correctness of EiffelBase2: a container library offering all the features customary in modern language frameworks, such as external iterators, and hash tables with generic mutable keys and load balancing. Verification uses the automated deductive verifier AutoProof, which we extended as part of the present work. Our results indicate that verification of a realistic container library (135 public methods, 8400 LOC) is possible with moderate annotation overhead (1.4 lines of specification per LOC) and good performance (0.2 s per method on average).

show abstract

Section: Kinds Of Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Interactive Verification Nanevski Et Al [Nmsmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Kinds Of Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A fully verified container library

Polikarpova¹,

Tschannen

Furia

2018

Form. Asp. Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given a program annotated with separation logic assertions, one can try to prove statically that each assertion holds at the appropriate program point; a long line of research in this area has resulted in a number of tools that are capable of doing this automatically at least some of the time for industrial code (see e.g. [7,8,14,16,19,24,28]). Alternatively, one might also try to test dynamically whether properties hold: simply execute the program and check whether each assertion is satisfied by the actual memory state of the program at that point (this is sometimes known as run-time verification).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model checking for symbolic-heap separation logic with inductive predicates

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Copyright and moral rights to this thesis/research project are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Any use of the thesis/research project for private study or research must be properly acknowledged with reference to the work's full bibliographic details.This thesis/research project may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from it, or its content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s).If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address:eprints@mdx.ac.ukThe item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated. AbstractWe 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.

show abstract

“…[11,15,21,22]). This fragment is much more expressive than the simple linked-list fragment, but is also computationally much harder.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disproving Inductive Entailments in Separation Logic via Base Pair Approximation

Brotherston

Gorogiannis

2015

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. 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.

show abstract

Natural proofs for data structure manipulation in C using separation logic

Cited by 27 publications

References 50 publications

A fully verified container library

A fully verified container library

Model checking for symbolic-heap separation logic with inductive predicates

Disproving Inductive Entailments in Separation Logic via Base Pair Approximation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About