Temporary Read-Only Permissions for Separation Logic

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10201)

Abstract

We present an extension of Separation Logic with a general mechanism for temporarily converting any assertion (or “permission”) to a read-only form. No accounting is required: our read-only permissions can be freely duplicated and discarded. We argue that, in circumstances where mutable data structures are temporarily accessed only for reading, our read-only permissions enable more concise specifications and proofs. The metatheory of our proposal is verified in Coq.

References

  1. 1.
    Appel, A.W.: Verified software toolchain. In: Barthe, G. (ed.) ESOP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6602, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19718-5_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balabonski, T., Pottier, F., Protzenko, J.: The design and formalization of Mezzo, a permission-based programming language. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 38(4), 14:1–14:94 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bengtson, J., Jensen, J.B., Birkedal, L.: Charge! A framework for higher-order separation logic in Coq. In: Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP), pp. 315–331 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berdine, J., Calcagno, C., O’Hearn, P.W.: Smallfoot: modular automatic assertion checking with separation logic. In: Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 115–137. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11804192_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bornat, R., Calcagno, C., O’Hearn, P., Parkinson, M.: Permission accounting in separation logic. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 259–270 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boyland, J.: Checking interference with fractional permissions. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) SAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2694, pp. 55–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi:10.1007/3-540-44898-5_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyland, J.T.: Semantics of fractional permissions with nesting. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 32(6), 22:1–22:33 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boyland, J.T., Retert, W.: Connecting effects and uniqueness with adoption. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 283–295 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Charguéraud, A.: Characteristic formulae for mechanized program verification. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris 7 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Charguéraud, A.: Characteristic formulae for the verification of imperative programs (2013, unpublished). http://www.chargueraud.org/research/2013/cf/cf.pdf
  12. 12.
    Charguéraud, A., Pottier, F.: Self-contained archive (2017). http://gallium.inria.fr/~fpottier/dev/seplogics/
  13. 13.
    Coblenz, M.J., Sunshine, J., Aldrich, J., Myers, B.A., Weber, S., Shull, F.: Exploring language support for immutability. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 736–747 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dinsdale-Young, T., Birkedal, L., Gardner, P., Parkinson, M.J., Yang, H.: Views: compositional reasoning for concurrent programs. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 287–300 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Distefano, D., Parkinson, M.J.: jStar: towards practical verification for Java. In: Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), pp. 213–226 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dockins, R., Hobor, A., Appel, A.W.: A fresh look at separation algebras and share accounting. In: Hu, Z. (ed.) APLAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5904, pp. 161–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10672-9_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fähndrich, M., DeLine, R.: Adoption and focus: practical linear types for imperative programming. In: Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 13–24 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gordon, C.S., Parkinson, M.J., Parsons, J., Bromfield, A., Duffy, J.: Uniqueness and reference immutability for safe parallelism. In: Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), pp. 21–40 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gotsman, A., Berdine, J., Cook, B., Rinetzky, N., Sagiv, M.: Local reasoning for storable locks and threads. Technical report MSR-TR-2007-39, Microsoft Research (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heule, S., Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P., Summers, A.J.: Abstract read permissions: fractional permissions without the fractions. In: Giacobazzi, R., Berdine, J., Mastroeni, I. (eds.) VMCAI 2013. LNCS, vol. 7737, pp. 315–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35873-9_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hobor, A., Appel, A.W., Nardelli, F.Z.: Oracle semantics for concurrent separation logic. In: Drossopoulou, S. (ed.) ESOP 2008. LNCS, vol. 4960, pp. 353–367. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78739-6_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jacobs, B., Piessens, F.: The VeriFast program verifier. Technical report CW-520, Department of Computer Science, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jensen, J.B., Benton, N., Kennedy, A.: High-level separation logic for low-level code. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 301–314 (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P.: A basis for verifying multi-threaded programs. In: Castagna, G. (ed.) ESOP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5502, pp. 378–393. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-00590-9_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Naden, K., Bocchino, R., Aldrich, J., Bierhoff, K.: A type system for borrowing permissions. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 557–570 (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    O’Hearn, P.W.: Resources, concurrency and local reasoning. Theor. Comput. Sci. 375(1–3), 271–307 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Potanin, A., Östlund, J., Zibin, Y., Ernst, M.D.: Immutability. In: Clarke, D., Noble, J., Wrigstad, T. (eds.) Aliasing in Object-Oriented Programming. Types, Analysis and Verification. LNCS, vol. 7850, pp. 233–269. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36946-9_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pottier, F.: Verifying a hash table and its iterators in higher-order separation logic. In: Certified Programs and Proofs (CPP), pp. 3–16 (2017)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reed, E.: Patina: a formalization of the rust programming language. Technical report UW-CSE-15-03-02, University of Washington (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reynolds, J.C.: Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures. In: Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pp. 55–74 (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    The Mozilla Foundation: The Rust programming language (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wadler, P.: Linear types can change the world! In: Broy, M., Jones, C. (eds.) Programming Concepts and Methods, North Holland (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.InriaParisFrance
  2. 2.ICube – CNRS, Université de StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance

Personalised recommendations