We present a new ML-like programming language Yarrow with algebraic effects and region-based memory management. Reconciling these programming language features into one language is challenging: the non-local control flow of algebraic effects break the stack discipline of function calls and returns that region-based memory management relies on, and multi-shot effect handlers break the invariant that regions can be exited at most once. We present a program logic, called Yarrow Logic (YL), that supports safe and modular reasoning about regions in the presence of one-shot and multi-shot effect handlers. We prove the logic sound w.r.t. the operational semantics of Yarrow which is inspired by the runtime of OCaml but refined for regions. We use YL to prove correctness of a number of case studies with algebraic effects, including checkpointing, asynchronous computation and a LIFO data structure implementation. Since all memory locations used in these case studies are allocated in regions, these case studies avoid using the less efficient garbage collected heap memory. We have formalized Yarrow’s operational semantics, the Yarrow program logic, and all our case studies using the Iris separation logic framework on top of the Rocq Prover.

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.

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.

Compositional compiler verification is a difficult problem that focuses on separate compilation of program components with possibly different verified compilers. Logical relations are widely used in proving correctness of program transformations in higher-order languages; however, they do not scale to compositional verification of multi-pass compilers due to their lack of transitivity. The only known technique to apply to compositional verification of multi-pass compilers for higher-order languages is parametric inter-language simulations (PILS), which is however significantly more complicated than traditional proof techniques for compiler correctness. In this paper, we present a novel verification framework for lightweight compositional compiler correctness . We demonstrate that by imposing the additional restriction that program components are compiled by pipelines that go through the same sequence of intermediate representations , logical relation proofs can be transitively composed in order to derive an end-to-end compositional specification for multi-pass compiler pipelines. Unlike traditional logical-relation frameworks, our framework supports divergence preservation—even when transformations reduce the number of program steps. We achieve this by parameterizing our logical relations with a pair of relational invariants . We apply this technique to verify a multi-pass, optimizing middle-end pipeline for CertiCoq, a compiler from Gallina (Coq’s specification language) to C. The pipeline optimizes and closure-converts an untyped functional intermediate language (ANF or CPS) to a subset of that language without nested functions, which can be easily code-generated to low-level languages. Notably, our pipeline performs more complex closure-allocation optimizations than the state of the art in verified compilation. Using our novel verification framework, we prove an end-to-end theorem for our pipeline that covers both termination and divergence and applies to whole-program and separate compilation, even when different modules are compiled with different optimizations. Our results are mechanized in the Coq proof assistant.

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.