Proof Tactics for Assertions in Separation Logic

  • Zhé Hóu
  • David Sanán
  • Alwen Tiu
  • Yang Liu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10499)


This paper presents tactics for reasoning about the assertions of separation logic. We formalise our proof methods in Isabelle/HOL based on Klein et al.’s separation algebra library. Our methods can also be used in other separation logic frameworks that are instances of the separation algebra of Calcagno et al. The first method, \( separata \), is based on an embedding of a labelled sequent calculus for abstract separation logic (ASL) by Hóu et al. The second method, \( starforce \), is a refinement of separata with specialised proof search strategies to deal with separating conjunction and magic wand. We also extend our tactics to handle pointers in the heap model, giving a third method \( sepointer \). Our tactics can automatically prove many complex formulae. Finally, we give two case studies on the application of our tactics.


  1. 1.
    Facebook Infer.
  2. 2.
    Isabelle/HOL tactics for separation algebra.
  3. 3.
    Bengtson, J., Jensen, J.B., Birkedal, L.: Charge! a framework for higher-order separation logic in Coq. In: Beringer, L., Felty, A. (eds.) ITP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7406, pp. 315–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-32347-8_21 CrossRefGoogle 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.
    Berdine, J., Calcagno, C., O’Hearn, P.W.: Symbolic execution with separation logic. In: Yi, K. (ed.) APLAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3780, pp. 52–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11575467_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brochenin, R., Demri, S., Lozes, E.: On the almighty wand. In: Kaminski, M., Martini, S. (eds.) CSL 2008. LNCS, vol. 5213, pp. 323–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-87531-4_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brotherston, J.: A unified display proof theory for bunched logic. ENTCS 265, 197–211 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brotherston, J., Kanovich, M.: Undecidability of propositional separation logic and its neighbours. J. ACM 61, 14:1–14:43 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brotherston, J., Villard, J.: Parametric completeness for separation theories. In: POPL 2014, pp. 453–464 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calcagno, C., Distefano, D., O’Hearn, P.W., Yang, H.: Compositional shape analysis by means of bi-abduction. J. ACM 58(6), 1–66 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calcagno, C., O’Hearn, P.W., Yang, H.: Local action and abstract separation logic. In: LICS 2007, pp. 366–378. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cervesato, I., Hodas, J.S., Pfenning, F.: Efficient resource management for linear logic proof search. In: Dyckhoff, R., Herre, H., Schroeder-Heister, P. (eds.) ELP 1996. LNCS, vol. 1050, pp. 67–81. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). doi: 10.1007/3-540-60983-0_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chaudhuri, K., Pfenning, F.: Focusing the inverse method for linear logic. In: Ong, L. (ed.) CSL 2005. LNCS, vol. 3634, pp. 200–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11538363_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chlipala, A.: Mostly-automated verification of low-level programs in computational separation logic. In: PLDI 2011, pp. 234–245 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chlipala, A., Malecha, G., Morrisett, G., Shinnar, A., Wisnesky, R.: Effective interactive proofs for higher-order imperative programs. In: ICFP 2009 (2009)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.
    Feng, X.: Local rely-guarantee reasoning. In POPL 2009, pp. 315–327. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galmiche, D., Larchey-Wendling, D.: Expressivity properties of Boolean BI through relational models. In: Arun-Kumar, S., Garg, N. (eds.) FSTTCS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4337, pp. 357–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11944836_33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ronghui, G., Shao, Z., Chen, H., Xiongnan, W., Kim, J., Sjöberg, V., Costanzo, D.: Certikos: an extensible architecture for building certified concurrent OS kernels. In OSDI 2016, pp. 653–669 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hodas, J.S., López, P., Polakow, J., Stoilova, L., Pimentel, E.: A tag-frame system of resource management for proof search in linear-logic programming. In: Bradfield, J. (ed.) CSL 2002. LNCS, vol. 2471, pp. 167–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45793-3_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hóu, Z., Clouston, R., Goré, R., Tiu, A.: Proof search for propositional abstract separation logics via labelled sequents. In: POPL 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hóu, Z., Goré, R., Tiu, A.: Automated theorem proving for assertions in separation logic with all connectives. In: Felty, A.P., Middeldorp, A. (eds.) CADE 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9195, pp. 501–516. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21401-6_34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hóu, Z., Tiu, A., Goré, R.: A labelled sequent calculus for BBI: proof theory and proof search. In: Galmiche, D., Larchey-Wendling, D. (eds.) TABLEAUX 2013. LNCS, vol. 8123, pp. 172–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40537-2_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hóu, Z., Tiu, A.: Completeness for a first-order abstract separation logic. In: Igarashi, A. (ed.) APLAS 2016. LNCS, vol. 10017, pp. 444–463. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47958-3_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Klein, G., Kolanski, R., Boyton, A.: Mechanised separation algebra. In: Beringer, L., Felty, A. (eds.) ITP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7406, pp. 332–337. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-32347-8_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krebbers, R., Jung, R., Bizjak, A., Jourdan, J.-H., Dreyer, D., Birkedal, L.: The essence of higher-order concurrent separation logic. In: Yang, H. (ed.) ESOP 2017. LNCS, vol. 10201, pp. 696–723. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-54434-1_26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krebbers, R., Timany, A., Birkedal, L.: Interactive proofs in higher-order concurrent separation logic. In: POPL 2017, pp. 205–217 (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lammich, P., Meis, R.: A separation logic framework for imperative HOL. In: AFP 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Larchey-Wendling, D., Galmiche, D.: Non-deterministic phase semantics and the undecidability of Boolean BI. ACM TOCL 14(1), 6:1–6:41 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Murray, T., Matichuk, D., Brassil, M., Gammie, P., Bourke, T., Seefried, S., Lewis, C., Gao, X., Klein, G.: seL4: from general purpose to a proof of information flow enforcement. In: SP 2013, pp. 415–429, May 2013Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Myreen, M.O.: Separation logic adapted for proofs by rewriting. In: Kaufmann, M., Paulson, L.C. (eds.) ITP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6172, pp. 485–489. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-14052-5_34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    O’Hearn, P.W., Pym, D.J.: The logic of bunched implications. BSL 5, 215–244 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Park, J., Seo, J., Park, S.: A theorem prover for Boolean BI. In: POPL 2013, pp. 219–232 (2013)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reynolds, J.C.: Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures. In LICS 2002, pp. 55–74 (2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sanán, D., Zhao, Y., Hou, Z., Zhang, F., Tiu, A., Liu, Y.: CSimpl: a rely-guarantee-based framework for verifying concurrent programs. In: Legay, A., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10205, pp. 481–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-54577-5_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sergey, I., Nanevski, A., Banerjee, A.: Mechanized verification of fine-grained concurrent programs. In PLDI 2015, pp. 77–87 (2015)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tuerk, T.: A formalisation of smallfoot in HOL. In: Berghofer, S., Nipkow, T., Urban, C., Wenzel, M. (eds.) TPHOLs 2009. LNCS, vol. 5674, pp. 469–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-03359-9_32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vafeiadis, V., Parkinson, M.: A marriage of rely/guarantee and separation logic. In: Cambridge Technical report, vol. 687 (2007)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Varming, C., Birkedal, L.: Higher-order separation logic in Isabelle/HOLCF. ENTCS 218, 371–389 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhé Hóu
    • 1
  • David Sanán
    • 1
  • Alwen Tiu
    • 1
  • Yang Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.Nanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations