Abstract
We give a procedure for establishing the invalidity of logical entailments in the symbolic heap fragment of separation logic with user-defined inductive predicates, as used in program verification. This disproof procedure attempts to infer the existence of a countermodel to an entailment by comparing computable model summaries, a.k.a. bases (modified from earlier work), of its antecedent and consequent. Our method is sound and terminating, but necessarily incomplete.
Experiments with the implementation of our disproof procedure indicate that it can correctly identify a substantial proportion of the invalid entailments that arise in practice, at reasonably low time cost. Accordingly, it can be used, e.g., to improve the output of theorem provers by returning “no” answers in addition to “yes” and “unknown” answers to entailment questions, and to speed up proof search or automated theory exploration by filtering out invalid entailments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Cyclist: software distribution for this paper, https://github.com/ngorogiannis/cyclist/releases/tag/TABLEAUX15
The first Separation Logic Competition (SL-COMP14), http://www.liafa.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~sighirea/slcomp14/
Antonopoulos, T., Gorogiannis, N., Haase, C., Kanovich, M., Ouaknine, J.: Foundations for decision problems in separation logic with general inductive predicates. In: Muscholl, A. (ed.) FOSSACS 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8412, pp. 411–425. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Bell, E.: Exponential numbers. The American Mathematical Monthly 41(7), 411–419 (1934)
Berdine, J., Calcagno, C., O’Hearn, P.W.: A decidable fragment of separation logic. In: Lodaya, K., Mahajan, M. (eds.) FSTTCS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3328, pp. 97–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Berdine, J., Calcagno, C., O’Hearn, P.W.: Symbolic execution with separation logic. In: Yi, K. (ed.) APLAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3780, pp. 52–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Berdine, J., Cook, B., Ishtiaq, S.: SLAyer: Memory safety for systems-level code. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 178–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Bornat, R., Calcagno, C., O’Hearn, P., Parkinson, M.: Permission accounting in separation logic. In: Proc. POPL-32, pp. 59–70. ACM (2005)
Brotherston, J.: Formalised inductive reasoning in the logic of bunched implications. In: Riis Nielson, H., Filé, G. (eds.) SAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4634, pp. 87–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Brotherston, J., Fuhs, C., Gorogiannis, N., Navarro Pérez, J.: A decision procedure for satisfiability in separation logic with inductive predicates. In: Proc. CSL-LICS, pp. 25:1–25:10. ACM (2014)
Brotherston, J., Gorogiannis, N.: Cyclic abduction of inductively defined safety and termination preconditions. In: Müller-Olm, M., Seidl, H. (eds.) SAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8723, pp. 68–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Brotherston, J., Gorogiannis, N., Kanovich, M., Rowe, R.: Model checking for symbolic-heap separation logic with inductive predicates (2015) (submitted)
Brotherston, J., Gorogiannis, N., Petersen, R.L.: A generic cyclic theorem prover. In: Jhala, R., Igarashi, A. (eds.) APLAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7705, pp. 350–367. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Calcagno, C., Distefano, D., O’Hearn, P., Yang, H.: Compositional shape analysis by means of bi-abduction. Journal of the ACM 58(6) (2011)
Chin, W.-N., David, C., Nguyen, H.H., Qin, S.: Automated verification of shape, size and bag properties via user-defined predicates in separation logic. Science of Computer Programming 77(9), 1006–1036 (2012)
Claessen, K., Johansson, M., Rosén, D., Smallbone, N.: Automating inductive proofs using theory exploration. In: Bonacina, M.P. (ed.) CADE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7898, pp. 392–406. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Cook, B., Haase, C., Ouaknine, J., Parkinson, M., Worrell, J.: Tractable reasoning in a fragment of separation logic. In: Katoen, J.-P., König, B. (eds.) CONCUR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6901, pp. 235–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Hurlin, C., Bobot, F., Summers, A.J.: Size does matter: Two certified abstractions to disprove entailment in intuitionistic and classical separation logic. In: Proc. IWACO, pp. 5:1–5:6. ACM (2009)
Iosif, R., Rogalewicz, A., Simacek, J.: The tree width of separation logic with recursive definitions. In: Bonacina, M.P. (ed.) CADE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7898, pp. 21–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Jacobs, B., Smans, J., Philippaerts, P., Vogels, F., Penninckx, W., Piessens, F.: VeriFast: A powerful, sound, predictable, fast verifier for C and Java. In: Bobaru, M., Havelund, K., Holzmann, G.J., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6617, pp. 41–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Magill, S., Tsai, M.-H., Lee, P., Tsay, Y.-K.: Automatic numeric abstractions for heap-manipulating programs. In: Proc. POPL-37, pp. 211–222. ACM (2010)
Pek, E., Qiu, X., Madhusudan, P.: Natural proofs for data structure manipulation in C using separation logic. In: Proc. PLDI-35, pp. 440–451. ACM (2014)
Reynolds, J.C.: Separation logic: A logic for shared mutable data structures. In: Proc. LICS-17, pp. 55–74. IEEE Computer Society (2002)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Brotherston, J., Gorogiannis, N. (2015). Disproving Inductive Entailments in Separation Logic via Base Pair Approximation. In: De Nivelle, H. (eds) Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods. TABLEAUX 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9323. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24312-2_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24312-2_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24311-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24312-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)