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.

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.

Very relaxed concurrency memory models, like those of the Arm-A, RISC-V and IBM Power hardware architectures, underpin much of computing but break a fundamental intuition about programs, namely that syntactic program order and the reads-from relation always both induce order in the execution. Instead, out-of-order execution is allowed except where prevented by certain pairwise dependencies, barriers, or other synchronisation. This means that there is no notion of the ‘current’ state of the program, making it challenging to design (and prove sound) syntax-directed, modular reasoning methods like Hoare logics, as usable resources cannot implicitly flow from one program point to the next. We present AxSL, a family of separation logics for relaxed hardware memory models, and instantiate it on sequential consistency and on the Arm-A memory model. The Arm-A instance captures the fine-grained reasoning underpinning the low-overhead synchronisation idioms used by high-performance systems code. We mechanise AxSL in the Iris separation logic framework, illustrate it on key examples, and prove it sound with respect to the axiomatic memory model of Arm-A. By instantiating AxSL on different memory models, we demonstrate the generality of our approach, and show that it is largely generic in the axiomatic model and in the instruction-set semantics, offering a potential way forward for compositional reasoning for other models, and for the combination of production concurrency models and full-scale ISAs.

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.