Reasoning in the Bernays-Schönfinkel-Ramsey Fragment of Separation Logic

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10145)

Abstract

Separation Logic (\(\mathsf {SL}\)) is a well-known assertion language used in Hoare-style modular proof systems for programs with dynamically allocated data structures. In this paper we investigate the fragment of first-order \(\mathsf {SL}\) restricted to the Bernays-Schönfinkel-Ramsey quantifier prefix \(\exists ^*\forall ^*\), where the quantified variables range over the set of memory locations. When this set is uninterpreted (has no associated theory) the fragment is PSPACE-complete, which matches the complexity of the quantifier-free fragment [7]. However, \(\mathsf {SL}\) becomes undecidable when the quantifier prefix belongs to \(\exists ^*\forall ^*\exists ^*\) instead, or when the memory locations are interpreted as integers with linear arithmetic constraints, thus setting a sharp boundary for decidability within \(\mathsf {SL}\). We have implemented a decision procedure for the decidable fragment of \(\exists ^*\forall ^*\mathsf {SL}\) as a specialized solver inside a DPLL(T) architecture, within the CVC4 SMT solver. The evaluation of our implementation was carried out using two sets of verification conditions, produced by (i) unfolding inductive predicates, and (ii) a weakest precondition-based verification condition generator. Experimental data shows that automated quantifier instantiation has little overhead, compared to manual model-based instantiation.

References

  1. 1.
    Albargouthi, A., Berdine, J., Cook, B., Kincaid, Z.: Spatial interpolants. In: Vitek, J. (ed.) ESOP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9032, pp. 634–660. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46669-8_26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barrett, C., Conway, C.L., Deters, M., Hadarean, L., Jovanović, D., King, T., Reynolds, A., Tinelli, C.: CVC4. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 171–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumgartner, P., Fuchs, A., Tinelli, C.: Implementing the model evolution calculus. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools 15(1), 21–52 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brochenin, R., Demri, S., Lozes, E.: On the almighty wand. Inf. Comput. 211, 106–137 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brotherston, J., Simpson, A.: Sequent calculi for induction and infinite descent. J. Logic Comput. 21(6), 1177–1216 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calcagno, C., Distefano, D.: Infer: an automatic program verifier for memory safety of C programs. In: Bobaru, M., Havelund, K., Holzmann, G.J., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6617, pp. 459–465. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20398-5_33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calcagno, C., Yang, H., O’Hearn, P.W.: Computability and complexity results for a spatial assertion language for data structures. In: Hariharan, R., Vinay, V., Mukund, M. (eds.) FSTTCS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2245, pp. 108–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi:10.1007/3-540-45294-X_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Demri, S., Deters, M.: Two-variable separation logic and its inner circle. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 16(2) (2015). Article no. 15Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Demri, S., Galmiche, D., Larchey-Wendling, D., Méry, D.: Separation logic with one quantified variable. In: Hirsch, E.A., Kuznetsov, S.O., Pin, J.É., Vereshchagin, N.K. (eds.) CSR 2014. LNCS, vol. 8476, pp. 125–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06686-8_10 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dudka, K., Peringer, P., Vojnar, T.: Predator: a practical tool for checking manipulation of dynamic data structures using separation logic. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 372–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galmiche, D., Méry, D.: Tableaux and resource graphs for separation logic. J. Logic Comput. 20(1), 189–231 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ganzinger, H., Hagen, G., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Tinelli, C.: DPLL(T): fast decision procedures. In: Alur, R., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3114, pp. 175–188. Springer, Berlin (2004). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-27813-9_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ge, Y., Moura, L.: Complete instantiation for quantified formulas in satisfiabiliby modulo theories. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 306–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02658-4_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halpern, J.Y.: Presburger arithmetic with unary predicates is \(\pi ^1_1\) complete. J. Symbolic Logic 56(2), 637–642 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ishtiaq, S.S., O’Hearn, P.W.: Bi as an assertion language for mutable data structures. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 36, 14–26 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Korovin, K.: iProver - an instantiation-based theorem prover for first-order logic (system description). In: Proceedings of 4th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, IJCAR 2008, Sydney, Australia, 12–15 August 2008, pp. 292–298 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewis, H.R.: Complexity results for classes of quantificational formulas. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 21(3), 317–353 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matiyasevich, Y.: Enumerable sets are diophantine. J. Sovietic Math. 11, 354–358 (1970)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nguyen, H.H., Chin, W.-N.: Enhancing program verification with lemmas. In: Gupta, A., Malik, S. (eds.) CAV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5123, pp. 355–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70545-1_34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Piskac, R., de Moura, L.M., Bjørner, N.: Deciding effectively propositional logic using DPLL and substitution sets. J. Autom. Reasoning 44(4), 401–424 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Piskac, R., Wies, T., Zufferey, D.: Automating separation logic using SMT. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 773–789. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Piskac, R., Wies, T., Zufferey, D.: Automating Separation Logic with Trees and Data. In: Biere, A., Bloem, R. (eds.) CAV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8559, pp. 711–728. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_47 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reynolds, A., Deters, M., Kuncak, V., Tinelli, C., Barrett, C.W.: Counter example-guided quantifier instantiation for synthesis in SMT. In: Proceedings of Computer Aided Verification - 27th International Conference, CAV 2015, San Francisco, CA, USA, 18–24 July 2015, Part II, pp. 198–216 (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reynolds, A., Iosif, R., Serban, C.: Reasoning in the Bernays-Schoenfinkel-Ramsey fragment of separation logic. CoRR abs/1610.04707 (2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.04707
  25. 25.
    Reynolds, A., Iosif, R., Serban, C., King, T.: A decision procedure for separation logic in SMT. In: Proceedings of 14th International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis, ATVA 2016, Chiba, Japan, 17–20 October 2016, pp. 244–261 (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reynolds, A., Tinelli, C., Goel, A., Krstić, S.: Finite model finding in SMT. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 640–655. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sighireanu, M., Cok, D.: Report on SL-COMP 2014. J. Satisfiability Boolean Model. Comput. 1 (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Toubhans, A., Chang, B.-Y.E., Rival, X.: An abstract domain combinator for separately conjoining memory abstractions. In: Müller-Olm, M., Seidl, H. (eds.) SAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8723, pp. 285–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10936-7_18 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Voigt, M., Weidenbach, C.: Bernays-Schönfinkel-Ramsey with simple bounds is nexptime-complete. CoRR abs/1501.07209 (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yang, H.: Local reasoning for stateful programs. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.Verimag/CNRS/Université de Grenoble AlpesGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations