Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Verified Software: Theories, Tools, and Experiments

VSTTE 2010: Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments pp 169–182Cite as

The Next 700 Separation Logics

(Invited Paper)

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 6217))

Abstract

In recent years, separation logic has brought great advances in the world of verification. However, there is a disturbing trend for each new library or concurrency primitive to require a new separation logic. I will argue that we shouldn’t be inventing new separation logics, but should find the right logic to reason about interference, and have a powerful abstraction mechanism to enable the library’s implementation details to be correctly abstracted. Adding new concurrency libraries should simply be a matter of verification, not of new logics or metatheory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnett, M., Chang, B.-Y.E., Deline, R., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M.: Boogie: A modular reusable verifier for object-oriented programs. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 364–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Bell, C.J., Appel, A., Walker, D.: Concurrent separation logic for pipelined parallelization. In: The 17th Annual Static Analysis Symposium (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Biering, B., Birkedal, L., Torp-Smith, N.: BI hyperdoctrines and higher-order separation logic. In: Sagiv, M. (ed.) ESOP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3444, pp. 233–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Biering, B., Birkedal, L., Torp-Smith, N.: Bi-hyperdoctrines, higher-order separation logic, and abstraction. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 29(5) (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Birkedal, L., Torp-Smith, N., Yang, H.: Semantics of separation-logic typing and higher-order frame rules for ALGOL-like languages. Logical Methods in Computer Science 2(5) (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bornat, R., Calcagno, C., O’Hearn, P., Parkinson, M.: Permission accounting in separation logic. In: POPL, pp. 259–270 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bornat, R., Calcagno, C., O’Hearn, P.: Local reasoning, separation and aliasing. In: SPACE (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boyland, J.: Checking interference with fractional permissions. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) SAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2694, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Brookes, S.: A semantics for concurrent separation logic. In: Gardner, P., Yoshida, N. (eds.) CONCUR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3170, pp. 16–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Cai, H., Shao, Z., Vaynberg, A.: Certified self-modifying code. In: PLDI, pp. 66–77 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Calcagno, C., Gardner, P., Zarfaty, U.: Context logic and tree update. In: POPL (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Calcagno, C., Gardner, P., Zarfaty, U.: Local reasoning about data update. Festschrift Computation, Meaning and Logic: Articles dedicated to Gordon Plotkin, 172 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Calcagno, C., O’Hearn, P.W., Yang, H.: Local action and abstract separation logic. In: Symp. on Logic in Comp. Sci. (LICS 2007), pp. 366–378 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dijkstra, E.W.: Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs. Commun. ACM 18(8), 453–457 (1975)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Dinsdale-Young, T., Dodds, M., Gardner, P., Parkinson, M., Vafeiadis, V.: Concurrent abstract predicates. In: ECOOP (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dinsdale-Young, T., Gardner, P., Wheelhouse, M.: Locality refinement. Technical Report DTR10-8, Imperial College London (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dodds, M., Feng, X., Parkinson, M., Vafeiadis, V.: Deny-guarantee reasoning. In: Castagna, G. (ed.) ESOP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5502, pp. 363–377. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Feng, X.: Local rely-guarantee reasoning. In: POPL (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Feng, X., Ferreira, R., Shao, Z.: On the relationship between concurrent separation logic and assume-guarantee reasoning. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 173–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Feng, X., Shao, Z., Dong, Y., Guo, Y.: Certifying low-level programs with hardware interrupts and preemptive threads. In: PLDI, pp. 170–182 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Feng, X., Shao, Z., Guo, Y., Dong, Y.: Combining domain-specific and foundational logics to verify complete software systems. In: Shankar, N., Woodcock, J. (eds.) VSTTE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5295, pp. 54–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Gotsman, A., Berdine, J., Cook, B., Rinetzky, N., Sagiv, M.: Local reasoning for storable locks and threads. In: Shao, Z. (ed.) APLAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4807, pp. 19–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Haack, C., Huisman, M., Hurlin, C.: Reasoning about Java’s Reentrant Locks. In: Ramalingam, G. (ed.) APLAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5356, pp. 171–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoare, C.A.R.: Proof of correctness of data representations. Acta Inf. 1, 271–281 (1972)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Hoare, C.A.R., O’Hearn, P.W.: Separation logic semantics for communicating processes. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 212, 3–25 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Ishtiaq, S.S., O’Hearn, P.W.: BI as an assertion language for mutable data structures. In: POPL, January 2001, pp. 14–26 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jones, C.B.: Tentative steps toward a development method for interfering programs. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 5(4), 596–619 (1983)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Kernighan, B.W., Ritchie, D.M.: The C Programming Language, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Krishnaswami, N.R., Aldrich, J., Birkedal, L., Svendsen, K., Buisse, A.: Design patterns in separation logic. In: Proceedings of TLDI 2009, pp. 105–116 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Krishnaswami, N.R., Birkedal, L., Aldrich, J.: Verifying event-driven programs using ramified frame properties. In: TLDI, pp. 63–76 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lamport, L.: A new solution of dijkstra’s concurrent programming problem. Commun. ACM 17(8), 453–455 (1974)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Landin, P.J.: The next 700 programming languages. Commun. ACM 9(3), 157–166 (1966)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. McCreight, A., Shao, Z., Lin, C., Li, L.: A general framework for certifying garbage collectors and their mutators. In: PLDI, pp. 468–479 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mitchell, J.C., Plotkin, G.D.: Abstract types have existential type. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 10(3), 470–502 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Nanevski, A., Ahmed, A., Morrisett, G., Birkedal, L.: Abstract predicates and mutable ADTs in Hoare type theory. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 189–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Naumann, D.A., Banerjee, A.: Dynamic boundaries: Information hiding by second order framing with first order assertions. In: Gordon, A.D. (ed.) ESOP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6012, pp. 2–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. O’Hearn, P.W.: Resources, concurrency and local reasoning. In: Gardner, P., Yoshida, N. (eds.) CONCUR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3170, pp. 49–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. O’Hearn, P.W., Reynolds, J.C., Yang, H.: Local reasoning about programs that alter data structures. In: Fribourg, L. (ed.) CSL 2001 and EACSL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2142, pp. 1–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. O’Hearn, P.W., Yang, H., Reynolds, J.C.: Separation and information hiding. In: Proc. 31th ACM Symp. on Principles of Prog. Lang., January 2004, pp. 268–280. ACM Press, New York (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Owicki, S.S., Gries, D.: An axiomatic proof technique for parallel programs I. Acta Inf. 6, 319–340 (1976)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. Parkinson, M.: Local Reasoning for Java. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge (November 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Parkinson, M., Bierman, G.: Separation logic, abstraction and inheritance. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2008). ACM Press, New York (January 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Parkinson, M.J., Bierman, G.M.: Separation logic and abstraction. In: POPL, pp. 247–258 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Parnas, D.L.: The secret history of information hiding, pp. 399–409. Springer, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pottier, F.: Hiding local state in direct style: A higher-order anti-frame rule. In: LICS, pp. 331–340 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Reynolds, J.C.: Types, abstraction and parametric polymorphism. In: IFIP Congress, pp. 513–523 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Reynolds, J.C.: Separation logic: A logic for shared mutable data structures. In: LICS (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Schwinghammer, J., Birkedal, L., Reus, B., Yang, H.: Nested hoare triples and frame rules for higher-order store. In: Grädel, E., Kahle, R. (eds.) CSL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5771, pp. 440–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  50. Schwinghammer, J., Yang, H., Birkedal, L., Pottier, F., Reus, B.: A semantic foundation for hidden state. In: Ong, L. (ed.) FOSSACS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6014, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Torp-Smith, N., Birkedal, L., Reynolds, J.C.: Local reasoning about a copying garbage collector. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 30(4) (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Vafeiadis, V.: Modular Fine-Grained Concurrency Verification. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge (July 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Vafeiadis, V., Parkinson, M.: A marriage of rely/guarantee and separation logic. In: Caires, L., Vasconcelos, V.T. (eds.) CONCUR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4703, pp. 256–271. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Villard, J., Lozes, É., Calcagno, C.: Proving copyless message passing. In: Hu, Z. (ed.) APLAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5904, pp. 194–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. Villard, J., Lozes, É., Calcagno, C.: Tracking heaps that hop with heap-hop. In: Esparza, J., Majumdar, R. (eds.) TACAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6015, pp. 275–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  56. Wickerson, J., Dodds, M., Parkinson, M.J.: Explicit stabilisation for modular rely-guarantee reasoning. In: ESOP, pp. 610–629 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Yang, H.: An example of local reasoning in BI pointer logic: the Schorr-Waite graph marking algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Semantics, Program Analysis, and Computing Environments for Memory Management (January 2001), http://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/~hyang/paper/SchorrWaite.ps

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Microsoft Research Cambridge,  

    Matthew Parkinson

Authors
  1. Matthew Parkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 439C Harris Center, University of Central Florida, Building 116, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard, 32816-2362, Orlando, FL, USA

    Gary T. Leavens

  2. School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University, Mile End Road, E1 NS, London, UK

    Peter O’Hearn

  3. Microsoft Research India, "Scientia", 196/36 2nd Main, Sadashivnagar, 560 080, Bangalore, India

    Sriram K. Rajamani

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Parkinson, M. (2010). The Next 700 Separation Logics . In: Leavens, G.T., O’Hearn, P., Rajamani, S.K. (eds) Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments. VSTTE 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6217. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15057-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15057-9_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-15056-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-15057-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation