Proving Copyless Message Passing

Villard, Jules; Lozes, Étienne; Calcagno, Cristiano

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10672-9_15

Cited by 43 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By migrating the ideas of SL, verification of shared memory models has gained great progress. Some new logics have been developed and their power has been well respected, e.g., Concurrent Separation Logic (CSL) [2], concurrent abstract predicate [5], and lots of other separation-based reasoning [20,21].…”

Section: Separation Logic and Rely-guarantee Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comparing with other trace-based reasoning, including Bickford', ours supports better modularity, and allows directly reasoning over existing code modules and conjoining separated proofs based Rely-Guarantee Modular Based Reasoning for Message-Passing Programs 249 on several explicit conditions. Villard et al [21] proposed a separation-based logic for copyless messagepassing models. One feature of their work is the support of ownership transfer.…”

Section: Related Work and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rely-Guarantee Based Reasoning for Message-Passing Programs

Lei¹,

Qiu²

2014

SACS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The difficulties of verifying concurrent programs lie in their inherent non-determinism and interferences. Rely-Guarantee reasoning is one useful approach to solve this problem for its capability in formally specifying inter-thread interferences. However, modern verification requires better locality and modularity. It is still a great challenge to verify a message-passing program in a modular and composable way.In this paper, we propose a new reasoning system for messagepassing programs. It is a novel logic that supports Hoare style triples to specify and verify distributed programs modularly. We concretize the concept of event traces to represent interactions among distributed agents, and specify behaviors of agents by their local traces with regard to environmental assumptions -an idea inspired by Rely-Guarantee reasoning. Based on trace semantics, the verification is compositional in both temporal and spatial dimensions. To show validity, we apply our logic to modularly prove several examples.

show abstract

Section: Separation Logic and Rely-guarantee Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Work and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rely-Guarantee Based Reasoning for Message-Passing Programs

Lei¹,

Qiu²

2014

SACS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These conditions are sufficient to ensure the absence of memory leak on channel closure [9]; Heap-Hop will issue a warning if they are not met. If moreover there is only one channel used in the whole program, without Hoare monitors, and if all switch receive statements are exhaustive with respect to the contract, then the program is also guaranteed to be deadlock-free.…”

Section: Heap-hopmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As already mentioned, Heap-Hop is a Smallfoot extension based on a fully formalized proof theory [9]. Another extension of Smallfoot is SmallfootRG [3], that combines Separation Logic with Rely-Guarantee reasoning.…”

Section: Related Work and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The proof system used by Heap-Hop [9] is based on separation logic [7], a logic that provides a local and modular analysis: the specification of a program is small, in that it focuses on the resources actually needed by to execute correctly, hopefully leading to concise proofs. The locality principle of separation logic is usually a strength, but for message passing it is also a weakness, since memory leaks and progress properties need to be checked on a global view of the program.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tracking Heaps That Hop with Heap-Hop

Villard

Lozes

Calcagno

2010

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Heap-Hop is a program prover for concurrent heap-manipulating programs that use Hoare monitors and message-passing synchronization. Programs are annotated with pre and post-conditions and loop invariants, written in a fragment of separation logic. Communications are governed by a form of session types called contracts. Heap-Hop can prove safety and race-freedom and, thanks to contracts, absence of memory leaks and deadlock-freedom. It has been used in several case studies, including concurrent programs for copyless list transfer, service provider protocols, and load-balancing parallel tree disposal.

show abstract

Automated Modular Verification for Relaxed Communication Protocols

Costea

Chin

Qin

et al. 2018

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ensuring software correctness and safety for communicationcentric programs is important but challenging. In this paper we introduce a solution for writing communication protocols, for checking protocol conformance and for verifying implementation safety. This work draws on ideas from both multiparty session types, which provide a concise way to express communication protocols, as well as from separationstyle logics for shared-memory concurrency, which provide strong safety guarantees for resource sharing. On the one hand, our proposal improves the expressiveness and precision of session types, without sacrificing their conciseness. On the other hand, it increases the applicability of software verification as well as its precision, by making it protocol aware. We also show how to perform the verification of such programs in a modular and automatic fashion. one of the communicating entities requires the re-validation of the entire system. Since validation might be expensive, or difficult to achieve if the source code of certain components is not available, it is desirable for the developer to be able to only validate her changes locally, rather than at the global level. Over the last decades, behavioral types [35,26] have been studied as specifications of the interactions in communicating systems. In particular, multiparty session types [23], or MPSTs, provide a user-friendly syntax for writing choreographic specifications of distributed systems, and a lightweight mechanism for enforcing communication safety. Communication is considered correct when the system's constituent processes are statically type-checked against the end-point projections of the MPST. This formalism and its numerous extensions are attractive in checking if the implementation follows the intended communication pattern, but it lacks the strong safety and correctness guarantees normally provided by the resource-aware verification systems. Specifically, the MPST approach checks if a transmission's exchanged type is the expected one. However, in their most common form, MPSTs are unable to assert something about the message's numerical properties, and even less so about its carried resources in the case of tightly coupled systems. All these, while numerical properties and resource sharing constitute the pièce de résistance for separation logic [38], a logic for reasoning about resource sharing. In this work, we attach a communication logic in the user-friendly style of MPST, to a separation logic for program verification. Even though we draw on ideas from MPST, the proposed logic differs from MPST in a number of features which yield a more expressive communication specification-without compromising its friendly syntax. The current proposal ultimately leads to stronger guarantees w.r.t. the safety and correctness of distributed system. We shall next highlight these differences. Writing Multiparty Communication Protocols. The language we propose for writing communication protocols is described in Fig. 1a. Similar to MPST, the language contains the te...

show abstract

Proving Copyless Message Passing

Cited by 43 publications

References 15 publications

Rely-Guarantee Based Reasoning for Message-Passing Programs

Rely-Guarantee Based Reasoning for Message-Passing Programs

Tracking Heaps That Hop with Heap-Hop

Automated Modular Verification for Relaxed Communication Protocols

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About