Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in
Menu
Find a journal Publish with us
Search
Cart
Book cover

International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

TACAS 2021: Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems pp 24–42Cite as

  1. Home
  2. Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems
  3. Conference paper
Bridging Arrays and ADTs in Recursive Proofs

Bridging Arrays and ADTs in Recursive Proofs

  • Grigory Fedyukovich  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1727-404310 &
  • Gidon Ernst  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3289-576411 
  • Conference paper
  • Open Access
  • First Online: 23 March 2021

  • 2418 Accesses

  • 3 Citations

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNTCS,volume 12652)

Abstract

We present an approach to synthesize relational invariants to prove equivalences between object-oriented programs. The approach bridges the gap between recursive data types and arrays that serve to represent internal states. Our relational invariants are recursively-defined, and thus are valid for data structures of unbounded size. Based on introducing recursion into the proofs by observing and lifting the constraints from joint methods of the two objects, our approach is fully automatic and can be seen as an algorithm for solving Constrained Horn Clauses (CHC) of a specific sort. It has been implemented on top of the SMT-based CHC solver AdtChc and evaluated on a range of benchmarks.

Download conference paper PDF

References

  1. J.-R. Abrial. Modeling in Event-B: System and Software engineering. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. Alur, R. Bodík, G. Juniwal, M. M. K. Martin, M. Raghothaman, S. A. Seshia, R. Singh, A. Solar-Lezama, E. Torlak, and A. Udupa. Syntax-Guided Synthesis. In FMCAD, pages 1–17. IEEE, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  3. S. Amani, A. Hixon, Z. Chen, C. Rizkallah, P. Chubb, L. O’Connor, J. Beeren, Y. Nagashima, J. Lim, T. Sewell, J. Tuong, G. Keller, T. Murray, G. Klein, and G. Heiserer. Cogent: Verifying high-assurance file system implementations. In ASPLOS, pages 175–188. ACM, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  4. R.-J. Back and J. Wright. Refinement calculus: a systematic introduction. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  5. G. Barthe, J. M. Crespo, and C. Kunz. Relational verification using product programs. In FM, volume 6664 of LNCS, pages 200–214. Springer, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  6. C. Baumann, B. Beckert, H. Blasum, and T. Bormer. Lessons learned from microkernel verification–specification is the new bottleneck. In SSV, volume 102 of EPTCS, pages 18–32. Elsevier, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  7. D. Beyer and M. E. Keremoglu. CPAchecker: A Tool for Configurable Software Verification. In CAV, volume 6806 of LNCS, pages 184–190. Springer, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  8. E. Börger. The ASM refinement method. Formal Aspects of Computing, 15(2-3):237–257, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. Champion, N. Kobayashi, and R. Sato. HoIce: An ICE-Based Non-linear Horn Clause Solver. In APLAS, volume 11275 of LNCS, pages 146–156. Springer, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  10. H. Chen, D. Ziegler, A. Chlipala, N. Zeldovich, and M. F. Kaashoek. Using Crash Hoare Logic for certifying the FSCQ file system. In SOSP. ACM, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  11. N. Chong, B. Cook, K. Kallas, K. Khazem, F. R. Monteiro, D. Schwartz-Narbonne, S. Tasiran, M. Tautschnig, and M. R. Tuttle. Code-level model checking in the software development workflow. In G. Rothermel and D. Bae, editors, ICSE-SEIP, pages 11–20. ACM, 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. Chudnov, N. Collins, B. Cook, J. Dodds, B. Huffman, C. MacCárthaigh, S. Magill, E. Mertens, E. Mullen, S. Tasiran, et al. Continuous formal verification of Amazon s2n. In CAV, pages 430–446. Springer, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  13. C. L. Conway and C. W. Barrett. Verifying low-level implementations of high-level datatypes. In CAV, volume 6174 of LNCS, pages 306–320. Springer, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  14. E. De Angelis, F. Fioravanti, A. Pettorossi, and M. Proietti. Solving Horn Clauses on Inductive Data Types Without Induction. TPLP, 18(3-4):452–469, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  15. W.-P. de Roever and K. Engelhardt. Data refinement: Model-oriented proof methods and their comparison. Cambridge University Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  16. E. W. Dijkstra. A constructive approach to the problem of program correctness. BIT Numerical Mathematics, 8(3):174–186, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  17. G. Ernst, J. Pfähler, G. Schellhorn, D. Haneberg, and W. Reif. KIV: Overview and VerifyThis competition. Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 17(6):677–694, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  18. G. Fedyukovich, A. Gurfinkel, and N. Sharygina. Automated discovery of simulation between programs. In LPAR, volume 9450 of LNCS, pages 606–621. Springer, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  19. G. Fedyukovich, S. Kaufman, and R. Bodík. Sampling Invariants from Frequency Distributions. In FMCAD, pages 100–107. IEEE, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  20. G. Fedyukovich, S. Prabhu, K. Madhukar, and A. Gupta. Solving Constrained Horn Clauses Using Syntax and Data. In FMCAD, pages 170–178. IEEE, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  21. G. Fedyukovich, S. Prabhu, K. Madhukar, and A. Gupta. Quantified Invariants via Syntax-Guided Synthesis. In CAV, Part I, volume 11561 of LNCS, pages 259–277. Springer, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  22. D. Felsing, S. Grebing, V. Klebanov, P. Rümmer, and M. Ulbrich. Automating regression verification. In ASE, pages 349–360. ACM, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  23. B. Godlin and O. Strichman. Inference rules for proving the equivalence of recursive procedures. Acta Informatica, 45(6):403–439, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  24. A. Gurfinkel, T. Kahsai, A. Komuravelli, and J. A. Navas. The SeaHorn Verification Framework. In CAV, volume 9206 of LNCS, pages 343–361. Springer, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  25. J. He, C. A. R. Hoare, and J. W. Sanders. Data refinement refined. In ESOP, pages 187–196. Springer, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  26. C. A. R. Hoare. Unified theories of programming. In Mathematical methods in program development, pages 313–367. Springer, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  27. H. Hojjat and P. Rümmer. The ELDARICA Horn Solver. In FMCAD, pages 158–164. IEEE, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  28. J. P. Inala, N. Polikarpova, X. Qiu, B. S. Lerner, and A. Solar-Lezama. Synthesis of recursive ADT transformations from reusable templates. In TACAS, Part I, volume 10205 of LNCS, pages 247–263, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  29. C. B. Jones. Systematic software development using VDM, volume 2. Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  30. G. Klein, J. Andronick, K. Elphinstone, G. Heiser, D. Cock, P. Derrin, D. Elkaduwe, K. Engelhardt, R. Kolanski, M. Norrish, T. Sewell, H. Tuch, and S. Winwood. seL4: Formal verification of an operating-system kernel. Communications of the ACM, 53(6):107–115, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  31. E. Kneuss, I. Kuraj, V. Kuncak, and P. Suter. Synthesis modulo recursive functions. In OOPSLA, pages 407–426, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  32. A. Komuravelli, A. Gurfinkel, and S. Chaki. SMT-Based Model Checking for Recursive Programs. In CAV, volume 8559 of LNCS, pages 17–34, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  33. L. Lamport. Specifying systems: the \(TLA^+\) language and tools for hardware and software engineers. Addison-Wesley, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  34. K. R. M. Leino and A. Milicevic. Program extrapolation with Jennisys. In OOPSLA, pages 411–430, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  35. X. Leroy. Formal verification of a realistic compiler. Communications of the ACM, 52(7):107–115, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  36. B. H. Liskov and J. M. Wing. A behavioral notion of subtyping. Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(6):1811–1841, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  37. R. Milner. An algebraic definition of simulation between programs. In IJCAI, pages 481–489, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  38. A. Miltner, S. Padhi, T. Millstein, and D. Walker. Data-driven inference of representation invariants. In PLDI, pages 1–15, 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  39. D. Mordvinov and G. Fedyukovich. Property Directed Inference of Relational Invariants. In FMCAD, pages 152–160. IEEE, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  40. L. D. Moura and N. Bjørner. Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In TACAS, volume 4963 of LNCS, pages 337–340. Springer, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  41. K. S. Namjoshi and L. D. Zuck. Witnessing program transformations. In SAS, volume 7935 of LNCS, pages 304–323. Springer, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  42. L. Nelson, H. Sigurbjarnarson, K. Zhang, D. Johnson, J. Bornholt, E. Torlak, and X. Wang. Hyperkernel: Push-button verification of an OS kernel. In OSDI, pages 252–269, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  43. P. W. O’Hearn. Continuous reasoning: scaling the impact of formal methods. In LICS, pages 13–25. ACM, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  44. L. Pick, G. Fedyukovich, and A. Gupta. Exploiting Synchrony and Symmetry in Relational Verification. In CAV, Part I, volume 10981 of LNCS, pages 164–182. Springer, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  45. M.-L. Potet and Y. Rouzaud. Composition and refinement in the B-method. In Proc. of the B Conference, volume 1393 of LNCS, pages 46–65. Springer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  46. A. Reynolds, H. Barbosa, A. Nötzli, C. W. Barrett, and C. Tinelli. cvc4sy: Smart and Fast Term Enumeration for Syntax-Guided Synthesis. In CAV, Part II, volume 11562 of LNCS, pages 74–83. Springer, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  47. A. Reynolds and V. Kuncak. Induction for SMT solvers. In VMCAI, volume 8931 of LNCS, pages 80–98. Springer, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  48. G. Schellhorn, G. Ernst, J. Pfähler, D. Haneberg, and W. Reif. Development of a verified Flash file system. In ABZ, volume 8477 of LNCS, pages 9–24. Springer, 2014. Invited Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  49. R. Sharma, E. Schkufza, B. R. Churchill, and A. Aiken. Data-driven Equivalence Checking. In OOPSLA, pages 391–406. ACM, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  50. H. Sigurbjarnarson, J. Bornholt, E. Torlak, and X. Wang. Push-button verification of file systems via crash refinement. In OSDI, pages 1–16, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  51. O. Strichman and M. Veitsman. Regression verification for unbalanced recursive functions. In FM, pages 645–658. Springer, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  52. P. Suter, M. Dotta, and V. Kuncak. Decision procedures for algebraic data types with abstractions. SIGPLAN notices, 45(1):199–210, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  53. H. Unno, S. Torii, and H. Sakamoto. Automating Induction for Solving Horn Clauses. In CAV, volume 10427 of LNCS, pages 571–591. Springer, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  54. N. Wirth. Program development by stepwise refinement. Communications of the ACM, 14(4):221–227, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  55. W. Yang, G. Fedyukovich, and A. Gupta. Lemma Synthesis for Automating Induction over Algebraic Data Types. In CP, volume 11802 of LNCS, pages 600–617. Springer, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  56. A. Zaostrovnykh, S. Pirelli, R. Iyer, M. Rizzo, L. Pedrosa, K. Argyraki, and G. Candea. Verifying software network functions with no verification expertise. In OSDI, pages 275–290, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA

    Grigory Fedyukovich

  2. Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany

    Gidon Ernst

Authors
  1. Grigory Fedyukovich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gidon Ernst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grigory Fedyukovich .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Prof. Jan Friso Groote

  2. Aalborg University, Aalborg East, Denmark

    Prof. Kim Guldstrand Larsen

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Fedyukovich, G., Ernst, G. (2021). Bridging Arrays and ADTs in Recursive Proofs. In: Groote, J.F., Larsen, K.G. (eds) Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. TACAS 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12652. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72013-1_2

Download citation

  • .RIS
  • .ENW
  • .BIB

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72013-1_2

  • Published: 23 March 2021

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-72012-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-72013-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • The European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software.

    Published in cooperation with

    http://www.etaps.org/

Search

Navigation

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Books A-Z

Publish with us

  • Publish your research
  • Open access publishing

Products and services

  • Our products
  • Librarians
  • Societies
  • Partners and advertisers

Our imprints

  • Springer
  • Nature Portfolio
  • BMC
  • Palgrave Macmillan
  • Apress
  • Your US state privacy rights
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms and conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Help and support

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature