Search

Verifying imperative programs is hard. A key difficulty is that the specification of what an imperative program does is often intertwined with details about pointers and imperative state. Although there are a number of powerful separation logics that allow the details of imperative state to be captured and managed, these details are complicated and reasoning about them requires significant time and expertise. In this paper, we take a different approach: a memory-safe type system that, as part of type-checking, extracts functional specifications from imperative programs. This disentangles imperative state, which is handled by the type system, from functional specifications, which can be verified without reference to pointers. A key difficulty is that sometimes memory safety depends crucially on the functional specification of a program; e.g., an array index is only memory-safe if the index is in bounds. To handle this case, our specification extraction inserts dynamic checks into the specification. Verification then requires the additional proof that none of these checks fail. However, these checks are in a purely functional language, and so this proof also requires no reasoning about pointers.

International audience; This paper presents a novel formal semantics, mechanized in Coq, for a large, sequential subset of the LLVM IR. In contrast to previous approaches, which use relationally-specified operational semantics, this new semantics is based on monadic interpretation of interaction trees, a structure that provides a more compositional approach to defining language semantics while retaining the ability to extract an executable interpreter. Our semantics handles many of the LLVM IR's non-trivial language features and is constructed modularly in terms of event handlers, including those that deal with nondeterminism in the specification. We show how this semantics admits compositional reasoning principles derived from the interaction trees equational theory of weak bisimulation, which we extend here to better deal with nondeterminism, and we use them to prove that the extracted reference interpreter faithfully refines the semantic model. We validate the correctness of the semantics by evaluating it on unit tests and LLVM IR programs generated by HELIX.

This paper extends the Dijkstra monad framework, designed for writing specifications over effectful programs using monadic effects, to handle termination sensitive specifications over interactive programs. We achieve this by introducing base specification monads for non-terminating programs with uninterpreted events. We model such programs using interaction trees, a coinductive datatype for representing programs with algebraic effects in Coq, which we further develop by adding trace semantics. We show that this approach subsumes typical, simple proof principles. The framework is implemented as an extension of the Interaction Trees Coq library.

"Interaction trees" (ITrees) are a general-purpose data structure for representing the behaviors of recursive programs that interact with their environments. A coinductive variant of "free monads," ITrees are built out of uninterpreted events and their continuations. They support compositional construction of interpreters from "event handlers", which give meaning to events by defining their semantics as monadic actions. ITrees are expressive enough to represent impure and potentially nonterminating, mutually recursive computations, while admitting a rich equational theory of equivalence up to weak bisimulation. In contrast to other approaches such as relationally specified operational semantics, ITrees are executable via code extraction, making them suitable for debugging, testing, and implementing software artifacts that are amenable to formal verification. We have implemented ITrees and their associated theory as a Coq library, mechanizing classic domain- and category-theoretic results about program semantics, iteration, monadic structures, and equational reasoning. Although the internals of the library rely heavily on coinductive proofs, the interface hides these details so that clients can use and reason about ITrees without explicit use of Coq's coinduction tactics. To showcase the utility of our theory, we prove the termination-sensitive correctness of a compiler from a simple imperative source language to an assembly-like target whose meanings are given in an ITree-based denotational semantics. Unlike previous results using operational techniques, our bisimulation proof follows straightforwardly by structural induction and elementary rewriting via an equational theory of combinators for control-flow graphs., Comment: 28 pages, 4 pages references, published at POPL 2020

Establishing that two programs are contextually equivalent is hard, yet essential for reasoning about semantics preserving program transformations such as compiler optimizations. We adapt Lassen’s normal form bisimulations technique to establish the soundness of equational theories for both an untyped call-by-value \(\lambda \)-calculus and a variant of Levy’s call-by-push-value language. We demonstrate that our equational theory significantly simplifies the verification of optimizations.

Temporal memory safety errors, such as dangling pointer dereferences and double frees, are a prevalent source of software bugs in unmanaged languages such as C. Existing schemes that attempt to retrofit temporal safety for such languages have high runtime overheads and/or are incomplete, thereby limiting their effectiveness as debugging aids. This paper presents CETS, a compile-time transformation for detecting all violations of temporal safety in C programs. Inspired by existing approaches, CETS maintains a unique identifier with each object, associates this metadata with the pointers in a disjoint metadata space to retain memory layout compatibility, and checks that the object is still allocated on pointer dereferences. A formal proof shows that this is sufficient to provide temporal safety even in the presence of arbitrary casts if the program contains no spatial safety violations. Our CETS prototype employs both temporal check removal optimizations and traditional compiler optimizations to achieve a runtime overhead of just 48% on average. When combined with a spatial-checking system, the average overall overhead is 116% for complete memory safety

This paper presents AURA, a programming language for access control that treats ordinary programming constructs (e.g., integers and recursive functions) and authorization logic constructs (e.g., principals and access control policies) in a uniform way. AURA is based on polymorphic DCC and uses dependent types to permit assertions that refer directly to AURA values while keeping computation out of the assertion level to ensure tractability. The main technical results of this paper include fully mechanically verified proofs of the decidability and soundness for AURA's type system, and a prototype typechecker and interpreter.

The C programming language is at least as well known for its absence of spatial memory safety guarantees (i.e., lack of bounds checking) as it is for its high performance. C's unchecked pointer arithmetic and array indexing allow simple programming mistakes to lead to erroneous executions, silent data corruption, and security vulnerabilities. Many prior proposals have tackled enforcing spatial safety in C programs by checking pointer and array accesses. However, existing software-only proposals have significant drawbacks that may prevent wide adoption, including: unacceptably high run-time overheads, lack of completeness, incompatible pointer representations, or need for non-trivial changes to existing C source code and compiler infrastructure. Inspired by the promise of these software-only approaches, this paper proposes a hardware bounded pointer architectural primitive that supports cooperative hardware/software enforcement of spatial memory safety for C programs. This bounded pointer is a new hardware primitive datatype for pointers that leaves the standard C pointer representation intact, but augments it with bounds information maintained separately and invisibly by the hardware. The bounds are initialized by the software, and they are then propagated and enforced transparently by the hardware, which automatically checks a pointer's bounds before it is dereferenced. One mode of use requires instrumenting only malloc, which enables enforcement of perallocation spatial safety for heap-allocated objects for existing binaries. When combined with simple intraprocedural compiler instrumentation, hardware bounded pointers enable a low-overhead approach for enforcing complete spatial memory safety in unmodified C programs.

Security-typed languages enforce secrecy or integrity policies by type-checking. This paper investigates continuation-passing style (CPS) as a means of proving that such languages enforce noninterference and as a first step towards understanding their compilation. We present a low-level, secure calculus with higher-order, imperative features and linear continuations. Linear continuations impose a stack discipline on the control flow of programs. This additional structure in the type system lets us establish a strong information-flow security property called noninterference. We prove that our CPS target language enjoys the noninterference property and we show how to translate secure high-level programs to this low-level language. This noninterference proof is the first of its kind for a language with higher-order functions and state.

Modern compilers, such as LLVM and GCC, use a static single assignment(SSA) intermediate representation (IR) to simplify and enable many advanced optimizations. However, formally verifying the correctness of SSA-based optimizations is challenging because SSA properties depend on a function's entire control-flow graph.This paper addresses this challenge by developing a proof technique for proving SSA-based program invariants and compiler optimizations. We use this technique in the Coq proof assistant to create mechanized correctness proofs of several "micro" transformations that form the building blocks for larger SSA optimizations. To demonstrate the utility of this approach, we formally verify a variant of LLVM's mem2reg transformation in Vellvm, a Coq-based formal semantics of the LLVM IR. The extracted implementation generates code with performance comparable to that of LLVM's unverified implementation.

One prerequisite to the formal verification of modern compilers is to formalize computing dominators, which enable SSA forms, advanced optimizations, and analysis. This paper provides an abstract specification of dominance analysis that is sufficient for formalizing modern compilers; it describes a certified implementation and instance of the specification that is simple to design and reason about, and also reasonably efficient. The paper also presents applications of dominance analysis: an SSA-form type checker, verifying SSA-based optimizations, and constructing dominator trees. This development is a part of the Vellvm project. All proofs and implementation have been carried out in Coq.

In traditional information-flow type systems, the security policy is often formalized as noninterference properties. However, noninterference alone is too strong to express security properties useful in practice. If we allow downgrading in such systems, it is challenging to formalize the security policy as an extensional property of the system.This paper presents a generalized framework of downgrading policies. Such policies can be specified in a simple and tractable language and can be statically enforced by mechanisms such as type systems. The security guarantee is then formalized as a concise extensional property using program equivalences. This relaxed noninterference generalizes traditional pure noninterference and precisely characterizes the information released due to downgrading.

Noninterference is a property of sequential programs that is useful for expressing security policies for data confidentiality and integrity. However, extending noninterference to concurrent programs has proved problematic. In this paper we present a relatively expressive secure concurrent calculi, provides first-class channels, high-order functions, and an unbounded number of threads. Well-typed programs obey a generalization of noninterference that ensures immunity to internal timing attacks and to attacks that exploit information about the thread scheduler. Elimination of these refinement attacks is possible because the enforced security property extends noninterference with observational determinism. Although the security property is strong, it also avoids some of the restrictiveness imposed on previous security-typed concurrent languages.

This paper presents an embedded security sublanguage for enforcing information-flow policies in the standard Haskell programming language. The sublanguage provides useful information-flow control mechanisms including dynamic security lattices, run-time code privileges and declassification all without modifying the base language. This design avoids the redundant work of producing new languages, lowers the threshold for adopting security-typed languages, and also provides great flexibility and modularity for using security-policy frameworks.The embedded security sublanguage is designed using a standard combinator interface called arrows. Computations constructed in the sublanguage have static and explicit control-flow components, making it possible to implement information-flow control using static-analysis techniques at run time, while providing strong security guarantees. This paper presents a formal proof that our embedded sublanguage provides noninterference, a concrete Haskell implementation and an example application demonstrating the proposed techniques.11This paper is an expanded version of an earlier paper that appeared in IEEE CSFW (Li and Zdancewic, 2006 [4]).

We introduce a Hoare-style logic for probabilistic programs, called VPHL , that has been formally verified in the Coq proof assistant. VPHL features propositional, rather than additive, assertions and a simple set of rules for reasoning about these assertions using the standard axioms of probability theory. VPHL 's assertions are partial correctness assertions , meaning that their conclusions are dependent upon (deterministic) program termination. The underlying simple probabilistic imperative language, PrImp , includes a probabilistic toss operator, probabilistic guards and potentially-non-terminating while loops.

How close are we to a world where every paper on programming languages is accompanied by an electronic appendix with machine-checked proofs? We propose an initial set of benchmarks for measuring progress in this area. Based on the metatheory of System F