Modern databases are highly concurrent and provide transactions as a mean of grouping several database operations into atomically applied units. Database vendors and software engineers use isolation levels to describe the consistency guarantees of transactions. The popular isolation levels give weak guarantees, with intricate semantics, to optimize performance of applications. The problem of assuring that database implementations actually implement the isolation level guarantees that application developers build their systems upon has received a great deal of attention from the testing community. But until now, there exists no method for formally verifying that a database implementation actually implements the isolation level that database vendors says it provides. In this paper, we present a method for verifying that a database implements an isolation level: we derive isolation levels directly, as formalized in transactional consistency models by the database community, from the structure of separation logic specifications. By doing so, we consider all program executions that a database and arbitrary clients of the database could produce. The result is a so-called free theorem meaning that any database implementation, whose operations are verified against a specific set of separation logic specifications, actually implements its isolation level. As all proofs in this paper are mechanized in the Rocq proof assistant and build upon a detailed semantic model of program execution, we believe this contribution raises the bar for the achievable robustness of databases.

We seek to enable more flexible use of rich specifications in a variety of ways that smoothly extend conventional software development practice. We show how a single specification language, based on separation logic to capture the subtle ownership disciplines of systems code, can be used for runtime assertion checking, for property-based testing, and for formal machine-checked proof—and how each of these complements and supports the others. We demonstrate all this on a challenging example: a component of a production hypervisor, running both stand-alone at user level and in situ in the hypervisor.

Differential privacy is the standard method for privacy-preserving data analysis. The importance of having strong guarantees on the reliability of implementations of differentially private algorithms is widely recognized and has sparked fruitful research on formal methods. However, the design patterns and language features used in modern DP libraries as well as the classes of guarantees that the library designers wish to establish often fall outside of the scope of previous verification approaches. We introduce a program logic suitable for verifying differentially private implementations written in complex, general-purpose programming languages. Our logic has first-class support for reasoning about privacy budgets as a separation logic resource. The expressiveness of the logic and the target language allow our approach to handle common programming patterns used in the implementation of libraries for differential privacy, such as privacy filters and caching. While previous work has focused on developing guarantees for programs written in domain-specific languages or for privacy mechanisms in isolation, our logic can reason modularly about primitives, higher-order combinators, and interactive algorithms. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach by implementing a verified library of differential privacy mechanisms, including an online version of the Sparse Vector Technique, as well as a privacy filter inspired by the popular Python library OpenDP, which crucially relies on our ability to handle the combination of randomization, local state, and higher-order functions. We demonstrate that our specifications are general and reusable by instantiating them to verify clients of our library. All of our results have been foundationally verified in the Rocq Prover.

WasmFX is a proposed extension of Wasm, a low-level portable bytecode, with primitives for explicitly manipulating execution stacks as continuations. By exposing an interface of effect handlers, WasmFX enables non-local control flow features to be compiled in a modular way: one handcrafts a library that directly implements such features in WasmFX, and compilation then merely calls into the library. Alas, code involving non-local control flow is notoriously challenging, and so this proposal raises the questions of the soundness of the language extension, and of the correctness of such handcrafted libraries. In this paper, we first describe WasmFXCert, a mechanisation of WasmFX in Rocq, and prove the expected type soundness result. We then develop Iris-WasmFX, a program logic to reason about Wasm programs that use effect handlers, and illustrate its application to two key use cases of effect handlers: a coroutine library, and a generator. Together, these validate the design of WasmFX, and provide a modular framework for verifying future effect-based libraries.

We present Foxtrot, the first higher-order separation logic for proving contextual refinement of higherorder concurrent probabilistic programs with higher-order local state. From a high level, Foxtrot inherits various concurrency reasoning principles from standard concurrent separation logic, e.g. invariants and ghost resources, and supports advanced probabilistic reasoning principles for reasoning about complex probability distributions induced by concurrent threads, e.g. tape presampling and induction by error amplification. The integration of these strong reasoning principles is highly non-trivial due to the combination of probability and concurrency in the language and the complexity of the Foxtrot model; the soundness of the logic relies on a version of the axiom of choice within the Iris logic, which is not used in earlier work on Iris-based logics. We demonstrate the expressiveness of Foxtrot on a wide range of examples, including the adversarial von Neumann coin and the randombytes_uniform function of the Sodium cryptography software library. All results have been mechanized in the Rocq proof assistant and the Iris separation logic framework.

A key feature in trusted computing is attestation, which allows encapsulated components (enclaves) to prove their identity to (local or remote) distrusting components. Reasoning about software that uses the technique requires tracking how trust evolves after successful attestation. This process is security-critical and non-trivial, but no existing formal verification technique supports modular reasoning about attestation of enclaves and their clients, or proving end-to-end properties for systems combining trusted, untrusted and attested code. We contribute Cerisier, the first program logic for modular reasoning about trusted, untrusted and attested code, fully mechanized in the Iris separation logic and the Rocq Prover. We formalize a recent proposal, CHERI-TrEE, to extend capability machines with enclave primitives, as an extension to the Cerise capability machine and program logic. Our program logic comes with a universal contract for untrusted code, which captures both capability safety and local enclave attestation. Like Cerise, this universal contract is phrased in terms of a logical relation defining capabilities’ authority. We demonstrate Cerisier by proving end-to-end properties for three representative applications of trusted computing: secure outsourced computation, mutual attestation and a modeled trusted sensor component.

Mixed choice multiparty message passing is an expressive concurrency programming paradigm where components use non-determinism to choose between concurrent options for sending and receiving messages. This flexibility makes it possible to program advanced algorithms, such as leader election protocols, succinctly. We present Mixtris, a mechanised higher-order separation logic for reasoning about functional correctness of higher-order imperative programs with mixed choice multiparty message passing in a shared memory setting. Mixtris builds upon recent work on separation logic for (non-mixed choice) multiparty message-passing programs, by drawing inspiration from session type systems for mixed choice multiparty message-passing programs. Mixtris is the first program logic for mixed choice multiparty message passing. We prove soundness of Mixtris using a novel model of our mixed choice multiparty protocols. We demonstrate how Mixtris can be used to formally reason about challenging examples, including some leader election protocols such as Chang and Roberts’s ring leader election protocol. All the results in the paper (both meta-theory and examples) have been formalised in the Rocq proof assistant on top of the Iris program logic framework.

Higher-order concurrent separation logics, such as Iris, have been tremendously successful in verifying safety properties of concurrent programs. However, state-of-the-art attempts to verify liveness properties in such logics have so far either lacked modularity (the ability to compose specifications of independent modules), or they have been far too complex to mechanize in a proof assistant. In this work, we introduce Lawyer — a mechanized program logic for modular verification of (fair) termination of concurrent programs. Lawyer draws inspiration from state-of-the-art approaches that use obligations for specifying and proving termination. However, unlike these approaches, which incorporate obligations by instrumenting the source code with erasable auxiliary code and state, Lawyer avoids such instrumentations. Instead, Lawyer incorporates obligations into the logic by embedding them into a purely logical labeled transition system that the program is shown to refine — this makes Lawyer far more amenable to mechanization. We demonstrate the expressivity of Lawyer by verifying termination of a range of examples, including modular verification of a client program whose termination relies on correctness of a fair lock library, and (separately) proving that a ticket lock implementation implements that library’s interface. To the best of our knowledge, Lawyer is the first mechanized program logic that supports modular higher-order impredicative liveness specifications of program modules. All the results that appear in the paper have been mechanized in the Rocq proof assistant on top of the Iris separation logic framework.

Wait-freedom is the strongest non-blocking progress guarantee for concurrent data structures, ensuring that every operation completes in a finite number of steps regardless of interference from other threads. While verification of wait-freedom has been studied for first-order languages, verifying it for higher-order programming languages with general references remains an open challenge. In such languages, operations may be used by arbitrary, unverified higher-order clients, making it unclear how to even define wait-freedom formally in terms of programs’ semantics, let alone prove it. In this paper, we present the first framework for verifying wait-freedom of concurrent programs written in a higher-order language with general references. Our approach is based on the Lawyer concurrent separation logic which has been recently introduced for termination verification. We identify a specification pattern in the Lawyer logic that captures wait-freedom. To establish this connection formally, we prove a novel adequacy theorem for Lawyer which states that programs which are proven correct in the Lawyer logic against a specification in the aforementioned specification pattern are wait-free. Proving wait-freedom requires to show that all calls made to operations by any arbitrary client terminate. Thus, as a part of proving the adequacy theorem above, we need to prove that the behavior of the client of the data structure is safe in the sense that it does not break the internal invariants of the data structure, e.g., by directly manipulating the data structure’s internal state. To this end, we develop a logical relations model that establishes safety for all clients once and for all. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach by proving wait-freedom for several representative examples, including a higher-order list map function, and a memory-efficient single-producer, single-consumer queue. For the latter, wait-freedom is conditional in that, as the name suggests, there can be at most one enqueuer thread and one dequeuer thread. To capture this formally, we introduce the notion of restricted wait-freedom as a variant of wait-freedom that restricts the number of concurrent threads, and show how our approach can support reasoning about restricted wait-freedom. All our results have been mechanized on top of the Rocq Prover and using the Iris separation logic framework that Lawyer is also based on.

Consistency guarantees among concurrently executing transactions in local- and distributed systems, commonly referred to as isolation levels, have been formalized in a number of models. Thus far, no model can reason about executable implementations of databases or local transaction libraries providing weak isolation levels. Weak isolation levels are characterized by being highly concurrent and, unlike their stronger counter part serializability, they are not equivalent to the consistency guarantees provided by a transaction library implemented using a global lock. Industrial-strength databases almost exclusively implement weak isolation levels as their default level. This calls for formalism as numerous bugs violating isolation have been detected in these databases. In this paper, we formalize three weak isolation levels in separation logic, namely read uncommitted, read committed, and snapshot isolation. We define modular separation logic specifications that are independent of the underlying transaction library implementation. Historically, isolation levels have been specified using examples of executions between concurrent transactions that are not allowed to occur, and we demonstrate that our specifications correctly prohibit such examples. To show that our specifications are realizable, we formally verify that an executable implementation of a key-value database running the multi-version concurrency control algorithm from the original snapshot isolation paper satisfies our specification of snapshot isolation. Moreover, we prove implications between the specifications—snapshot isolation implies read committed and read committed implies read uncommitted—and thus the verification effort of the database serves as proof that all of our specifications are realizable. All results are mechanized in the Rocq proof assistant on top of the Iris separation logic framework.

We present Coneris, the first higher-order concurrent separation logic for reasoning about error probability bounds of higher-order concurrent probabilistic programs with higher-order state. To support modular reasoning about concurrent (non-probabilistic) program modules, state-of-the-art program logics internalize the classic notion of linearizability within the logic through the concept of logical atomicity . In Coneris, we extend this idea to probabilistic concurrent program modules by capturing a novel notion of randomized logical atomicity within the logic. To do so, Coneris utilizes presampling tapes and a novel probabilistic update modality to describe how state is changed probabilistically at linearization points. We demonstrate this approach by means of smaller synthetic examples and larger case studies. All of the presented results, including the meta-theory, have been mechanized in the Rocq prover and the Iris separation logic framework.

Common functional languages incentivize tail-recursive functions, as opposed to general recursive functions that consume stack space and may not scale to large inputs. This distinction occasionally requires writing functions in a tail-recursive style that may be more complex and slower than the natural, non-tail-recursive definition.

This work describes our implementation of the tail modulo constructor (TMC) transformation in the OCaml compiler, an optimization that provides stack-efficiency for a larger class of functions — tail-recursive modulo constructors — which includes in particular the natural definition of List.map and many similar recursive data-constructing functions.

We prove the correctness of this program transformation in a simplified setting — a small untyped calculus — that captures the salient aspects of the OCaml implementation. Our proof is mechanized in the Coq proof assistant, using the Iris base logic. An independent contribution of our work is an extension of the Simuliris approach to define simulation relations that support different calling conventions. To our knowledge, this is the first use of Simuliris to prove the correctness of a compiler transformation.

Separation logic has become an important tool for formally capturing and reasoning about the ownership patterns of imperative programs, originally for paper proof, and now the foundation for industrial static analyses and multiple proof tools. However, there has been very little work on program testing of separationlogic specifications in concrete execution. At first sight, separation-logic formulas are hard to evaluate in reasonable time, with their implicit quantification over heap splittings, and other explicit existentials. In this paper we observe that a restricted fragment of separation logic, adopted in the CN proof tool to enable predictable proof automation, also has a natural and readable computational interpretation, that makes it practically usable in runtime testing. We discuss various design issues and develop this as a C + CN source to C source translation, Fulminate. This adds checks – including ownership checks and ownership transfer – for C code annotated with CN pre- and post-conditions; we demonstrate this on nontrivial examples, including the allocator from a production hypervisor. We formalise our runtime ownership testing scheme, showing (and proving) how its reified ghost state correctly captures ownership passing, in a semantics for a small C-like language.

Effectful programs interact in ways that go beyond simple input-output, making compositional reasoning challenging. Existing work has shown that when such programs are “separate”, i.e., when programs do not interfere with each other, it can be easier to reason about them. While reasoning about separated resources has been well-studied, there has been little work on reasoning about separated effects, especially for functional, higher-order programming languages. We propose two higher-order languages that can reason about sharing and separation in effectful programs. Our first language ${𝜆}_{\text{INI}}$ has a linear type system and probabilistic semantics, where the two product types capture independent and possibly-dependent pairs. Our second language ${𝜆}_{\text{INI}}^2$ is two-level, stratified language, inspired by Benton’s linear-non-linear (LNL) calculus. We motivate this language with a probabilistic model, but we also provide a general categorical semantics and exhibit a range of concrete models beyond probabilistic programming. We prove soundness theorems for all of our languages; our general soundness theorem for our categorical models of ${𝜆}_{\text{INI}}^2$ uses a categorical gluing construction.

We revisit the foundational notion of “resources” used by separation logics from a categorical and algebraic viewpoint. In particular, we show that the cameras used by concurrent, higher-order, impredicative separation logics like Iris as a generalization of partial commutative monoids can be simplified and clarified and we introduce a category of cameras in which many vital cameras exhibit simple universal properties. We do this by observing that an important structure on cameras (the core operator) can be uniquely constrained and replaced by the property governing the idempotent elements of the camera. We verify that all cameras used in practice in Iris satisfy this property and use this insight to simplify the existing Iris formalization.

We present Tachis, a higher-order separation logic to reason about the expected cost of probabilistic programs. Inspired by the uses of time credits for reasoning about the running time of deterministic programs, we introduce a novel notion of probabilistic cost credit. Probabilistic cost credits are a separation logic resource that can be used to pay for the cost of operations in programs, and that can be distributed across all possible branches of sampling instructions according to their weight, thus enabling us to reason about expected cost. The representation of cost credits as separation logic resources gives Tachis a great deal of flexibility and expressivity. In particular, it permits reasoning about amortized expected cost by storing excess credits as potential into data structures to pay for future operations. Tachis further supports a range of cost models, including running time and entropy usage. We showcase the versatility of this approach by applying our techniques to prove upper bounds on the expected cost of a variety of probabilistic algorithms and data structures, including randomized quicksort, hash tables, and meldable heaps. All of our results have been mechanized using Coq, Iris, and the Coquelicot real analysis library.

Probabilistic programs often trade accuracy for efficiency, and thus may, with a small probability, return an incorrect result. It is important to obtain precise bounds for the probability of these errors, but existing verification approaches have limitations that lead to error probability bounds that are excessively coarse, or only apply to first-order programs. In this paper we present Eris, a higher-order separation logic for proving error probability bounds for probabilistic programs written in an expressive higher-order language. Our key novelty is the introduction of error credits , a separation logic resource that tracks an upper bound on the probability that a program returns an erroneous result. By representing error bounds as a resource, we recover the benefits of separation logic, including compositionality, modularity, and dependency between errors and program terms, allowing for more precise specifications. Moreover, we enable novel reasoning principles such as expectation-preserving error composition, amortized error reasoning, and error induction. We illustrate the advantages of our approach by proving amortized error bounds on a range of examples, including collision probabilities in hash functions, which allow us to write more modular specifications for data structures that use them as clients. We also use our logic to prove correctness and almost-sure termination of rejection sampling algorithms. All of our results have been mechanized in the Coq proof assistant using the Iris separation logic framework and the Coquelicot real analysis library.

A capability machine is a type of CPU allowing fine-grained privilege separation using capabilities , machine words that represent certain kinds of authority. We present a mathematical model and accompanying proof methods that can be used for formal verification of functional correctness of programs running on a capability machine, even when they invoke and are invoked by unknown (and possibly malicious) code. We use a program logic called Cerise for reasoning about known code, and an associated logical relation, for reasoning about unknown code. The logical relation formally captures the capability safety guarantees provided by the capability machine. The Cerise program logic, logical relation, and all the examples considered in the paper have been mechanized using the Iris program logic framework in the Coq proof assistant. The methodology we present underlies recent work of the authors on formal reasoning about capability machines [Georges et al. 2021 ; Skorstengaard et al. 2019a ; Van Strydonck et al. 2022 ], but was left somewhat implicit in those publications. In this paper we present a pedagogical introduction to the methodology, in a simpler setting (no exotic capabilities), and starting from minimal examples. We work our way up to new results about a heap-based calling convention and implementations of sophisticated object-capability patterns of the kind previously studied for high-level languages with object-capabilities, demonstrating that the methodology scales to such reasoning.

Expressive state-of-the-art separation logics rely on step-indexing to model semantically complex features and to support modular reasoning about imperative higher-order concurrent and distributed programs. Stepindexing comes, however, with an inherent cost: it restricts the adequacy theorem of program logics to a fairly simple class of safety properties. In this paper, we explore if and how intensional refinement is a viable methodology for strengthening higher-order concurrent (and distributed) separation logic to prove non-trivial safety and liveness properties. Specifically, we introduce Trillium, a language-agnostic separation logic framework for showing intensional refinement relations between traces of a program and a model. We instantiate Trillium with a concurrent language and develop Fairis, a concurrent separation logic, that we use to show liveness properties of concurrent programs under fair scheduling assumptions through a fair liveness-preserving refinement of a model. We also instantiate Trillium with a distributed language and obtain an extension of Aneris, a distributed separation logic, which we use to show refinement relations between distributed systems and TLA + models.

Separation logic is used to reason locally about stateful programs. State of the art program logics for higher-order store are usually built on top of untyped operational semantics, in part because traditional denotational methods have struggled to simultaneously account for general references and parametric polymorphism. The recent discovery of simple denotational semantics for general references and polymorphism in synthetic guarded domain theory has enabled us to develop TULIP, a higher-order separation logic over the typed equational theory of higher-order store for a monadic version of System F{mu,ref}. The Tulip logic differs from operationally-based program logics in two ways: predicates range over the meanings of typed terms rather than over the raw code of untyped terms, and they are automatically invariant under the equational congruence of higher-order store, which applies even underneath a binder. As a result, “pure” proof steps that conventionally require focusing the Hoare triple on an operational redex are replaced by a simple equational rewrite in Tulip. We have evaluated Tulip against standard examples involving linked lists in the heap, comparing our abstract equational reasoning with more familiar operational-style reasoning. Our main result is the soundness of Tulip, which we establish by constructing a BI-hyperdoctrine over the denotational semantics of F{mu,ref} in an impredicative version of synthetic guarded domain theory.

Grove is a concurrent separation logic library for verifying distributed systems. Grove is the first to handle time-based leases, including their interaction with reconfiguration, crash recovery, thread-level concurrency, and unreliable networks. This paper uses Grove to verify several distributed system components written in Go, including vKV, a realistic distributed multi-threaded key-value store. vKV supports reconfiguration, primary/backup replication, and crash recovery, and uses leases to execute read-only requests on any replica. vKV achieves high performance (67–73% of Redis on a single core), scales with more cores and more backup replicas (achieving about 2× the throughput when going from 1 to 3 servers), and can safely execute reads while reconfiguring.

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.

We present a foundationally verified implementation of a reliable communication library for asynchronous client-server communication, and a stack of formally verified components on top thereof. Our library is implemented in an OCaml-like language on top of UDP and features characteristic traits of existing protocols, such as a simple handshaking protocol, bidirectional channels, and retransmission/acknowledgement mechanisms. We verify the library in the Aneris distributed separation logic using a novel proof pattern—dubbed the session escrow pattern—based on the existing escrow proof pattern and the so-called dependent separation protocols, which hitherto have only been used in a non-distributed concurrent setting. We demonstrate how our specification of the reliable communication library simplifies formal reasoning about applications, such as a remote procedure call library, which we in turn use to verify a lazily replicated key-value store with leader-followers and clients thereof. Our development is highly modular—each component is verified relative to specifications of the components it uses (not the implementation). All our results are formalized in the Coq proof assistant.

We present Lilac, a separation logic for reasoning about probabilistic programs where separating conjunction captures probabilistic independence. Inspired by an analogy with mutable state where sampling corresponds to dynamic allocation, we show how probability spaces over a fixed, ambient sample space appear to be the natural analogue of heap fragments, and present a new combining operation on them such that probability spaces behave like heaps and measurability of random variables behaves like ownership. This combining operation forms the basis for our model of separation, and produces a logic with many pleasant properties. In particular, Lilac has a frame rule identical to the ordinary one, and naturally accommodates advanced features like continuous random variables and reasoning about quantitative properties of programs. Then we propose a new modality based on disintegration theory for reasoning about conditional probability. We show how the resulting modal logic validates examples from prior work, and give a formal verification of an intricate weighted sampling algorithm whose correctness depends crucially on conditional independence structure.

Despite significant progress in the verification of hypervisors, operating systems, and compilers, and in verification tooling, there exists a wide gap between the approaches used in verification projects and conventional development of systems software. We see two main challenges in bringing these closer together: verification handling the complexity of code and semantics of conventional systems software, and verification usability. We describe an experiment in verification tool design aimed at addressing some aspects of both: we design and implement CN, a separation-logic refinement type system for C systems software, aimed at predictable proof automation, based on a realistic semantics of ISO C. CN reduces refinement typing to decidable propositional logic reasoning, uses first-class resources to support pointer aliasing and pointer arithmetic, features resource inference for iterated separating conjunction, and uses a novel syntactic restriction of ghost variables in specifications to guarantee their successful inference. We implement CN and formalise key aspects of the type system, including a soundness proof of type checking. To demonstrate the usability of CN we use it to verify a substantial component of Google’s pKVM hypervisor for Android.

Conflict-free Replicated Datatypes (CRDTs) are a class of distributed data structures that are highly-available and weakly consistent. The CRDT taxonomy is further divided into two subclasses: state-based and operation-based (op-based). Recent prior work showed how to use separation logic to verify convergence and functional correctness of op-based CRDTs while (a) verifying implementations (as opposed to high-level protocols), (b) giving high level specifications that abstract from low-level implementation details, and (c) providing specifications that are modular (i.e. allow client code to use the CRDT like an abstract data type). We extend this separation logic approach to verification of CRDTs to handle state-based CRDTs, while respecting the desiderata (a)-(c). The key idea is to track the state of a CRDT as a function of the set of operations that produced that state. Using the observation that state-based CRDTs are automatically causally-consistent, we obtain CRDT specifications that are agnostic to whether a CRDT is state- or op-based. When taken together with prior work, our technique thus provides a unified approach to specification and verification of op- and state-based CRDTs. We have tested our approach by verifying StateLib, a library for building state-based CRDTs. Using StateLib, we have further verified convergence and functional correctness of multiple example CRDTs from the literature. Our proofs are written in the Aneris distributed separation logic and are mechanized in Coq.

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.

We present a new version of ReLoC: a relational separation logic for proving refinements of programs with higher-order state, fine-grained concurrency, polymorphism and recursive types. The core of ReLoC is its refinement judgment $𝑒\precsim 𝑒\prime :𝜏$, which states that a program $𝑒$ refines a program $𝑒\prime$ at type $𝜏$. ReLoC provides type-directed structural rules and symbolic execution rules in separation-logic style for manipulating the judgment, whereas in prior work on refinements for languages with higher-order state and concurrency, such proofs were carried out by unfolding the judgment into its definition in the model. ReLoC’s abstract proof rules make it simpler to carry out refinement proofs, and enable us to generalize the notion of logically atomic specifications to the relational case, which we call logically atomic relational specifications. We build ReLoC on top of the Iris framework for separation logic in Coq, allowing us to leverage features of Iris to prove soundness of ReLoC, and to carry out refinement proofs in ReLoC. We implement tactics for interactive proofs in ReLoC, allowing us to mechanize several case studies in Coq, and thereby demonstrate the practicality of ReLoC. ReLoC Reloaded extends ReLoC (LICS’18) with various technical improvements, a new Coq mechanization, and support for Iris’s prophecy variables. The latter allows us to carry out refinement proofs that involve reasoning about the program’s future. We also expand ReLoC’s notion of logically atomic relational specifications with a new flavor based on the HOCAP pattern by Svendsen et al.

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.

Compiler correctness proofs for higher-order concurrent languages are difficult: they involve establishing a termination-preserving refinement between a concurrent high-level source language and an implementation that uses low-level shared memory primitives. However, existing logics for proving concurrent refinement either neglect properties such as termination, or only handle first-order state. In this paper, we address these limitations by extending Iris, a recent higher-order concurrent separation logic, with support for reasoning about termination-preserving refinements. To demonstrate the power of these extensions, we prove the correctness of an efficient implementation of a higher-order, session-typed language. To our knowledge, this is the first program logic capable of giving a compiler correctness proof for such a language. The soundness of our extensions and our compiler correctness proof have been mechanized in Coq.

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.

I chart a line of development from category-theoretic models of programs and logics to automatic program verification/analysis techniques that are in deployment at Facebook. Our journey takes in a number of concepts from the computer science logician’s toolkit – including categorical logic and model theory, denotational semantics, the Curry-Howard isomorphism, sub structural logic, Hoare Logic and Separation Logic, abstract interpretation, compositional program analysis, the frame problem, and abductive inference.

We present a precise correspondence between separation logic and a simple notion of predicate BI, extending the earlier correspondence given between part of separation logic and propositional BI. Moreover, we introduce the notion of a BI hyperdoctrine, show that it soundly models classical and intuitionistic first- and higher-order predicate BI, and use it to show that we may easily extend separation logic to higher-order . We also demonstrate that this extension is important for program proving, since it provides sound reasoning principles for data abstraction in the presence of aliasing.

In joint work with Peter O’Hearn and others, based on early ideas of Burstall, we have developed an extension of Hoare logic that permits reasoning about low-level imperative programs that use shared mutable data structure. The simple imperative programming language is extended with commands (not expressions) for accessing and modifying shared structures, and for explicit allocation and deallocation of storage. Assertions are extended by introducing a “separating conjunction” that asserts that its subformulas hold for disjoint parts of the heap, and a closely related “separating implication”. Coupled with the inductive definition of predicates on abstract data structures, this extension permits the concise and flexible description of structures with controlled sharing. In this paper, we survey the current development of this program logic, including extensions that permit unrestricted address arithmetic, dynamically allocated arrays, and recursive procedures. We also discuss promising future directions.

Reynolds has developed a logic for reasoning about mutable data structures in which the pre- and postconditions are written in an intuitionistic logic enriched with a spatial form of conjunction. We investigate the approach from the point of view of the logic BI of bunched implications of O’Hearn and Pym. We begin by giving a model in which the law of the excluded middle holds, thus showing that the approach is compatible with classical logic. The relationship between the intuitionistic and classical versions of the system is established by a translation, analogous to a translation from intuitionistic logic into the modal logic S4. We also consider the question of completeness of the axioms. BI’s spatial implication is used to express weakest preconditions for object-component assignments, and an axiom for allocating a cons cell is shown to be complete under an interpretation of triples that allows a command to be applied to states with dangling pointers. We make this latter a feature, by incorporating an operation, and axiom, for disposing of memory. Finally, we describe a local character enjoyed by specifications in the logic, and show how this enables a class of frame axioms, which say what parts of the heap don’t change, to be inferred automatically.

We introduce a logic BI in which a multiplicative (or linear) and an additive (or intuitionistic) implication live side-by-side. The propositional version of BI arises from an analysis of the proof-theoretic relationship between conjunction and implication; it can be viewed as a merging of intuitionistic logic and multiplicative intuitionistic linear logic. The naturality of BI can be seen categorically: models of propositional BI’s proofs are given by bicartesian doubly closed categories, i.e., categories which freely combine the semantics of propositional intuitionistic logic and propositional multiplicative intuitionistic linear logic. The predicate version of BI includes, in addition to standard additive quantifiers, multiplicative (or intensional) quantifiers [inline image] and [inline image] which arise from observing restrictions on structural rules on the level of terms as well as propositions. We discuss computational interpretations, based on sharing, at both the propositional and predicate levels.