Advertisement

Friends Need a Bit More: Maintaining Invariants Over Shared State

  • Mike Barnett
  • David A. Naumann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3125)

Abstract

In the context of a formal programming methodology and verification system for ownership-based invariants in object-oriented programs, a friendship system is defined. Friendship is a flexible protocol that allows invariants expressed over shared state. Such invariants are more expressive than those allowed in exisiting ownership type systems because they link objects that are not in the same ownership domain. Friendship permits the modular verification of cooperating classes. This paper defines friendship, sketches a soundness proof, and provides several realistic examples.

Keywords

Proof Obligation Java Modeling Language Ownership Type Separation Logic Master Clock 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AO97]
    Apt, K.R., Olderog, E.-R.: Verification of Sequential and Concurrent Programs, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [BDF+ 03a]
    Barnett, M., DeLine, R., Fähndrich, M., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants. In: Eisenbach, S., Leavens, G.T., Müller, P., Poetzsch-Heffter, A., Poll, E. (eds.) Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs 2003 (July 2003), Available as Technical Report 408, Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich. A newer version of this paper is [BDF+ 03b]Google Scholar
  3. [BDF+ 03b]
    Barnett, M., DeLine, R., Fähndrich, M., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: Verificationof object-oriented programs with invariants. Manuscript KRML 122b (December 2003), Available from http://research.microsoft.com/~leino/papers.html
  4. [BLS03]
    Boyapati, C., Liskov, B., Shrira, L.: Ownership types for object encapsulation. In: POPL, pp. 213–223 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. [BN02a]
    Banerjee, A., Naumann, D.A.: Ownership confinement ensures representation independence for object-oriented programs. Extended version of [BN02b], Available from http://www.cs.stevens-tech.edu/~naumann/oceri.ps (2002)
  6. [BN02b]
    Banerjee, A., Naumann, D.A.: Representation independence, confinement and access control. In: POPL, pp. 166–177 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. [BN03]
    Banerjee, A., Naumann, D.A.: Ownership transfer and abstraction. Technical Report TR 2004-1, Computing and Information Sciences, Kansas State University (2003) Google Scholar
  8. [BS03]
    Barnett, M., Schulte, W.: Runtime verification of.NET contracts. The Journal of Systems and Software 65(3), 199–208 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. [CD02]
    Clarke, D., Drossopoulou, S.: Ownership, encapsulation and the disjointness of type and effect. In: OOPSLA (November 2002)Google Scholar
  10. [CL02]
    Cheon, Y., Leavens, G.T.: A runtime assertion checker for the Java Modeling Language (JML). In: Arabnia, H.R., Mun, Y. (eds.) Proceedings of the InternationalConference on Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP 2002), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, June 24-27, pp. 322–328. CSREA Press (2002)Google Scholar
  11. [Cla01]
    Clarke, D.: Object ownership and containment. Dissertation, Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia (2001) Google Scholar
  12. [CNP01]
    Clarke, D.G., Noble, J., Potter, J.M.: Simple ownership types for object containment. In: Knudsen, J.L. (ed.) ECOOP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2072, p. 53. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [DF01]
    DeLine, R., Fähndrich, M.: Enforcing high-level protocols in low-level software. In: PLDI, pp. 59–69 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. [DF03]
    DeLine, R., Fähndrich, M.: The Fugue protocol checker: Is your softwarebaroque? Available from http://research.microsoft.com/~maf/papers.html (2003)
  15. [DLNS98]
    Detlefs, D.L., Leino, K.R.M., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B.: Extended static checking. Research Report 159, Compaq Systems Research Center (December 1998) Google Scholar
  16. [dRdBH+ 01]
    de Roever, W.-P., de Boer, F., Hannemann, U., Hooman, J., Lakhnech, Y., Poel, M., Zwiers, J.: Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Methods. Cambridge University, Cambridge (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [FLL+ 02]
    Flanagan, C., Leino, K.R.M., Lillibridge, M., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B., Stata, R.: Extended static checking for Java. In: PLDI, pp. 234–245 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. [Gun00]
    Gunnerson, E.: A Programmer’s Introduction to C#. Apress, Berkeley (2000)Google Scholar
  19. [Jon83]
    Jones, C.B.: Tentative steps towards a development method for interfering programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 5(4), 596–619 (1983)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [LG86]
    Liskov, B., Guttag, J.: Abstraction and Specification in Program Development. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [LM04]
    Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P.: Object invariants in dynamic contexts. In: Odersky, M. (ed.) ECOOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3086, pp. 491–515. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) (to appear)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [LN02]
    Leino, K.R.M., Nelson, G.: Data abstraction and information hiding. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 24(5), 491–553 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [LW94]
    Liskov, B.H., Wing, J.M.: A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16(6) (1994)Google Scholar
  24. [Mey97]
    Meyer, B.: Object-oriented Software Construction, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, New York (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. [MPHL03]
    Müller, P., Poetzsch-Heffter, A., Leavens, G.T.: Modular invariants for object structures. Technical Report 424, ETH Zürich, Chair of Software Engineering (October 2003)Google Scholar
  26. [Mül02]
    Müller, P.: Modular Specification and Verification of Object-Oriented Programs. LNCS, vol. 2262. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [NB04]
    Naumann, D.A., Barnett, M.: Towards imperative modules: Reasoning about invariants and sharing of mutable state (extended abstract). In: LICS (2004) (to appear)Google Scholar
  28. [OYR04]
    O’Hearn, P.W., Yang, H., Reynolds, J.C.: Separation and information hiding. In: POPL, pp. 268–280 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. [PdB03]
    Pierik, C., de Boer, F.S.: A syntax-directed Hoare logic for object-oriented programming concepts. In: Najm, E., Nestmann, U., Stevens, P. (eds.) FMOODS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2884, pp. 64–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [Rey02]
    Reynolds, J.C.: Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures. In: LICS, pp. 55–74 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mike Barnett
    • 1
  • David A. Naumann
    • 2
  1. 1.Microsoft Research 
  2. 2.Stevens Institute of Technology 

Personalised recommendations