Type soundness, which asserts that “well-typed programs cannot go wrong,” is widely viewed as the canonical theorem one must prove to establish that a type system is doing its job. It is commonly proved using the so-called syntactic approach (also known as progress and preservation ), which has had a huge impact on the study and teaching of programming language foundations. Unfortunately, syntactic type soundness is a rather weak theorem. It only applies to programs that are well typed in their entirety and thus tells us nothing about the many programs written in “safe” languages that make use of “unsafe” language features. Even worse, it tells us nothing about whether type systems achieve one of their main goals: enforcement of data abstraction. One can easily define a language that enjoys syntactic type soundness and yet fails to support even the most basic modular reasoning principles for abstraction mechanisms like closures, objects, and abstract data types. Given these concerns, we argue that programming languages researchers should no longer be satisfied with proving syntactic type soundness and should instead start proving semantic type soundness , a more useful theorem that captures more accurately what type systems are actually good for. Semantic type soundness is an old idea—Milner’s original account of type soundness from 1978 was semantic—but it fell out of favor in the 1990s due to limitations and complexities of denotational models. In the succeeding decades, thanks to a series of technical advances—notably, step-indexed Kripke logical relations constructed over operational semantics and higher-order concurrent separation logic as consolidated in the Iris framework in Coq—we can now build (machine-checked) semantic soundness proofs at a much higher level of abstraction than was previously possible. The resulting “logical” approach to semantic type soundness has already been employed to great effect in a number of recent papers, but those papers typically (a) concern advanced problem scenarios that complicate the presentation, (b) assume significant prior knowledge of the reader, and (c) suppress many details of the proofs. Here, we aim to provide a gentler, more pedagogically motivated introduction to logical type soundness, targeted at a broader audience that may or may not be familiar with logical relations and Iris. As a bonus, we also show how logical type soundness proofs can easily be generalized to establish an even stronger relational property— representation independence —for realistic type systems.

Program logics for bug-finding (such as the recently introduced Incorrectness Logic) have framed correctness and incorrectness as dual concepts requiring different logical foundations. In this paper, we argue that a single unified theory can be used for both correctness and incorrectness reasoning. We present Outcome Logic (OL), a novel generalization of Hoare Logic that is both monadic (to capture computational effects) and monoidal (to reason about outcomes and reachability). OL expresses true positive bugs, while retaining correctness reasoning abilities as well. To formalize the applicability of OL to both correctness and incorrectness, we prove that any false OL specification can be disproven in OL itself. We also use our framework to reason about new types of incorrectness in nondeterministic and probabilistic programs. Given these advances, we advocate for OL as a new foundational theory of correctness and incorrectness.

Today’s compilers employ a variety of non-trivial optimizations to achieve good performance. One key trick compilers use to justify transformations of concurrent programs is to assume that the source program has no data races: if it does, they cause the program to have undefined behavior (UB) and give the compiler free rein. However, verifying correctness of optimizations that exploit this assumption is a non-trivial problem. In particular, prior work either has not proven that such optimizations preserve program termination (particularly non-obvious when considering optimizations that move instructions out of loop bodies), or has treated all synchronization operations as external functions (losing the ability to reorder instructions around them).

In this work we present Simuliris, the first simulation technique to establish termination preservation (under a fair scheduler) for a range of concurrent program transformations that exploit UB in the source language. Simuliris is based on the idea of using ownership to reason modularly about the assumptions the compiler makes about programs with well-defined behavior. This brings the benefits of concurrent separation logics to the space of verifying program transformations: we can combine powerful reasoning techniques such as framing and coinduction to perform thread-local proofs of non-trivial concurrent program optimizations. Simuliris is built on a (non-step-indexed) variant of the Coq-based Iris framework, and is thus not tied to a particular language. In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness of Simuliris on standard compiler optimizations involving data race UB, we also instantiate it with Jung et al.’s Stacked Borrows semantics for Rust and generalize their proofs of interesting type-based aliasing optimizations to account for concurrency.

Step-indexed logical relations are an extremely useful technique for building operational-semantics-based models and program logics for realistic, richly-typed programming languages. They have proven to be indispensable for modeling features like higher-order state , which many languages support but which were difficult to accommodate using traditional denotational models. However, the conventional wisdom is that, because they only support reasoning about finite traces of computation, (unary) step-indexed models are only good for proving safety properties like “well-typed programs don’t go wrong”. There has consequently been very little work on using step-indexing to establish liveness properties, in particular termination. In this paper, we show that step-indexing can in fact be used to prove termination of well-typed programs—even in the presence of dynamically-allocated, shared, mutable, higher-order state—so long as one’s type system enforces disciplined use of such state. Specifically, we consider a language with asynchronous channels, inspired by promises in JavaScript, in which higher-order state is used to implement communication, and linearity is used to ensure termination. The key to our approach is to generalize from natural number step-indexing to transfinite step-indexing , which enables us to compute termination bounds for program expressions in a compositional way. Although transfinite step-indexing has been proposed previously, we are the first to apply this technique to reasoning about termination in the presence of higher-order state.

Iris is a framework for higher-order concurrent separation logic, which has been implemented in the Coq proof assistant and deployed very effectively in a wide variety of verification projects. Iris was designed with the express goal of simplifying and consolidating the foundations of modern separation logics, but it has evolved over time, and the design and semantic foundations of Iris itself have yet to be fully written down and explained together properly in one place. Here, we attempt to fill this gap, presenting a reasonably complete picture of the latest version of Iris (version 3.1), from first principles and in one coherent narrative.

The development of concurrent separation logic (CSL) has sparked a long line of work on modular verification of sophisticated concurrent programs. Two of the most important features supported by several existing extensions to CSL are higher-order quantification and custom ghost state. However, none of the logics that support both of these features reap the full potential of their combination. In particular, none of them provide general support for a feature we dub “higher-order ghost state”: the ability to store arbitrary higher-order separation-logic predicates in ghost variables. In this paper, we propose higher-order ghost state as a interesting and useful extension to CSL, which we formalize in the framework of Jung et al.‘s recently developed Iris logic. To justify its soundness, we develop a novel algebraic structure called CMRAs (“cameras”), which can be thought of as “step-indexed partial commutative monoids”. Finally, we show that Iris proofs utilizing higher-order ghost state can be effectively formalized in Coq, and discuss the challenges we faced in formalizing them.