Proving Reachability-Logic Formulas Incrementally

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9942)


Reachability Logic (rl) is a formalism for defining the operational semantics of programming languages and for specifying program properties. As a program logic it can be seen as a language-independent alternative to Hoare Logics. Several verification techniques have been proposed for rl, all of which have a circular nature: the rl formula under proof can circularly be used as a hypothesis in the proof of another rl formula, or even in its own proof. This feature is essential for dealing with possibly unbounded repetitive behaviour (e.g., program loops). The downside of such approaches is that the verification of a set of rl formulas is monolithic, i.e., either all formulas in the set are proved valid, or nothing can be inferred about any of the formula’s validity or invalidity. In this paper we propose a new, incremental method for proving a large class of rl formulas. The proposed method takes as input a given rl formula under proof (corresponding to a given program fragment), together with a (possibly empty) set of other valid rl formulas (e.g., already proved using our method), which specify sub-programs of the program fragment under verification. It then checks certain conditions are shown to be equivalent to the validity of the rl formula under proof. A newly proved formula can then be incrementally used in the proof of other rl formulas, corresponding to larger program fragments. The process is repeated until the whole program is proved. We illustrate our approach by verifying the nontrivial Knuth-Morris-Pratt string-matching program.


Implementation Purpose Graph Construction Symbolic Execution Semantical Rule Incremental Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Roşu, G., Ştefănescu, A.: Towards a unified theory of operational and axiomatic semantics. In: Czumaj, A., Mehlhorn, K., Pitts, A., Wattenhofer, R. (eds.) ICALP 2012, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7392, pp. 351–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roşu, G., Ştefănescu, A.: Checking reachability using matching logic. In: Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA 2012), pp. 555–574. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roşu, G., Ştefănescu, A., Ciobâcă, Ş., Moore, B.M.: One-path reachability logic. In: Proceedings of the 28th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2013), pp. 358–367. IEEE, June 2013Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ştefănescu, A., Ciobâcă, Ş., Mereuţă, R., Moore, B.M., Şerbănuţă, T.F., Roşu, G.: All-path reachability logic. In: Dowek, G. (ed.) RTA-TLCA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8560, pp. 425–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arusoaie, A., Lucanu, D., Rusu, V.: A generic framework for symbolic execution: theory and applications. Research report RR-8189. Inria, September 2015Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arusoaie, A., Lucanu, D., Rusu, V.: A generic framework for symbolic execution. Research report RR-8189. Inria, September 2015.
  7. 7.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C. (eds.): All About Maude. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.S.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roşu, G., Ellison, C., Schulte, W.: Matching logic: an alternative to Hoare/Floyd logic. In: Johnson, M., Pavlovic, D. (eds.) AMAST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6486, pp. 142–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roşu, G., Ştefănescu, A.: Matching logic: a new program verification approach (NIER track). In: ICSE 2011: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 868–871. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roşu, G.: Matching logic — extended abstract. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications (RTA 2015). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 36, pp. 5–21. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, July 2015Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Verification of the KMP algorithm.
  13. 13.
    Lucanu, D., Rusu, V., Arusoaie, A., Nowak, D.: Verifying reachability-logic properties on rewriting-logic specifications. In: Martí-Oliet, N., Ölveczky, P.C., Talcott, C. (eds.) Meseguer Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 9200, pp. 451–474. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Visser, W., Havelund, K., Brat, G.P., Park, S., Lerda, F.: Model checking programs. Autom. Softw. Eng. 10(2), 203–232 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Filliâtre, J.-C., Paskevich, A.: Why3 — where programs meet provers. In: Felleisen, M., Gardner, P. (eds.) ESOP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7792, pp. 125–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Roever, W.P., de Boer, F.S., Hannemann, U., Hooman, J., Lakhnech, Y., Poel, M., Zwiers, J.: Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Methods. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.InriaLilleFrance
  2. 2.“Al. I. Cuza” University of IaşiIaşiRomania

Personalised recommendations