Quang-Trung Ta
Abstract
Abstract
We present a deductive proof system to automatically prove separation logic entailments by mathematical induction. Our technique is called the mutual induction proof. It is an instance of the well-founded induction, a.k.a., Noetherian induction. More specifically, we propose a novel induction principle based on a well-founded relation of separation logic models. We implement this principle explicitly as inference rules so that it can be easily integrated into a deductive proof system. Our induction principle allows a goal entailment and other entailments derived during the proof search to be used as hypotheses to mutually prove each other. This feature increases the success chance of proving the goal entailment. We have implemented this mutual induction proof technique in a prototype prover and evaluated it on two entailment benchmarks collected from the literature as well as a synthetic benchmark. The experimental results are promising since our prover can prove most of the valid entailments in these benchmarks, and achieves a better performance than other state-of-the-art separation logic provers.
- BCI11 Berdine J, Cook B, Ishtiaq S (2011) SLAyer: memory safety for systems-level code. In: International conference on computer aided verification (CAV), pp 178–183Google Scholar
- BCO04 Berdine J, Calcagno C, O'Hearn PW (2004) A decidable fragment of separation logic. In: International conference on foundations of software technology and theoretical computer science (FSTTCS), pp 97–109Google Scholar
- BCO05 Berdine J, Calcagno C, O'Hearn PW (2005) Symbolic execution with separation logic. In: Asian symposium on programming languages and systems (APLAS), pp 52–68Google Scholar
- BDP11 Brotherston J, Distefano D, Petersen RL (2011) Automated cyclic entailment proofs in separation logic. In: International conference on automated deduction (CADE), pp 131–146Google Scholar
- BGP12 Brotherston J, Gorogiannis N, Petersen RL (2012) A generic cyclic theorem prover. In: Asian symposium on programming languages and systems (APLAS), pp 350–367Google Scholar
- BIP10 Quantitative separation logic and programs with listsJ Autom Reason2010452131156267045910.1007/s10817-010-9179-91207.03038Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bro+16 Brotherston J, Gorogiannis N, Kanovich MI, Rowe R (2016) Model checking for Symbolic-Heap Separation Logic with inductive predicates. In: Symposium on principles of programming languages (POPL), pp 84–96Google Scholar
- Bro07 Brotherston J (2007) Formalised inductive reasoning in the logic of bunched implications. In: International static analysis symposium (SAS), pp 87–103Google Scholar
- Bun01 The automation of proof by mathematical inductionHandbook of automated reasoning, vol 22001MIT PressElsevier84591110.1016/B978-044450813-3/50015-1Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cal+15 Calcagno C, Distefano D, Dubreil J, Gabi D, Hooimeijer P, Luca M, O'Hearn PW, Papakonstantinou I, Purbrick J, Rodriguez D (2015) Moving fast with software verification. In: NASA international symposium on formal methods (NFM), pp 3–11Google Scholar
- Chi+12 Automated verification of shape, size and bag properties via user-defined predicates in separation logicSci Comput Program20127791006103610.1016/j.scico.2010.07.0041243.68148Google ScholarDigital Library
- CJT15 Chu D-H, Jaffar J, Trinh M-T (2015) Automatic induction proofs of data-structures in imperative programs. In: Conference on programming language design and implementation (PLDI), pp 457–466Google Scholar
- Ene+14 Enea C, Lengál O, Sighireanu M, Vojnar T (2014) Compositional entailment checking for a fragment of separation logic. In: Asian symposium on programming languages and systems (APLAS), pp 314–333Google Scholar
- ESW15 Enea C, Sighireanu M, Wu Z (2015) On automated lemma generation for separation logic with inductive definitions. In: International symposium on automated technology for verification and analysis (ATVA), pp 80–96Google Scholar
- God92 Godel K (1992) On formally undecidable propositions of principia mathematica and related systems (Meltzer B, Trans.). Dover Publications, Mineola. ISBN: 0486669807Google Scholar
- Har09 Harrison J (2009) Handbook of practical logic and automated reasoning, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, New York. ISBN: 0521899575, 9780521899574Google Scholar
- IRS13 Iosif R, Rogalewicz A, Simácek J (2013) The tree width of separation logic with recursive definitions. In: International conference on automated deduction (CADE), pp 21–38Google Scholar
- IRV14 Iosif R, Rogalewicz A, Vojnar T (2014) Deciding entailments in inductive separation logic with tree automata. In: International symposium on automated technology for verification and analysis (ATVA), pp 201–218Google Scholar
- KN87 Matching, unification and complexityACM SIGSAM Bull19872146910.1145/36330.363320626.68036Google ScholarDigital Library
- MB08 De Moura LM, Bjørner N (2008) Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: International conference on tools and algorithms for construction and analysis of systems (TACAS), pp 337–340Google Scholar
- NC08 Nguyen HH, Chin W-N (Wei-Ngan) Enhancing program verification with lemmas. In: International conference on computer aided verification (CAV), pp 355–369Google Scholar
- Ngu+07 Nguyen HH, David C, Qin S, Chin W-N (2007) Automated verification of shape and size properties via separation logic. In: International conference on verification, model checking, and abstract interpretation (VMCAI), pp 251–266Google Scholar
- PQM14 Pek E, Qiu X, Madhusudan P (2014) Natural proofs for data structure manipulation in C using separation logic. In: Conference on programming language design and implementation (PLDI), p 46Google Scholar
- PR11 Pérez JAN, Rybalchenko A (2011) Separation Logic + superposition calculus = heap theorem prover. In: Conference on programming language design and implementation (PLDI), pp 556–566Google Scholar
- PR13 Pérez JAN, Rybalchenko A (2013) Separation logic modulo theories. In: Asian symposium on programming languages and systems (APLAS), pp 90–106Google Scholar
- PWZ13 Piskac R, Wies T, Zufferey D (2013) Automating separation logic using SMT. In: International conference on computer aided verification (CAV), pp 773–789Google Scholar
- Qiu+13 Qiu X, Garg P, Stefanescu A, Madhusudan P (2013) Natural proofs for structure, data, and separation. In: Conference on programming language design and implementation (PLDI), pp 231–242Google Scholar
- Rey02 Reynolds JC (2002) Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures. In: Symposium on logic in computer science (LICS), pp 55–74Google Scholar
- Rey08 Reynolds JC (2008) An introduction to separation logic. In: Lecture notes for the PhD fall school on logics and semantics of state, Copenhagen. Retrieved on 2017, March 16th, 2008. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jcr/copenhagen08.pdfGoogle Scholar
- SC16 Report on SL-COMP 2014J Satisf Boolean Model Comput201691731863512055Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ta+16 Ta Q-T, Le TC, Khoo S-C, Chin W-N (2016) Automated mutual explicit induction proof in separation logic. In: FM 2016: Formal methods—21st international symposium, Limassol, Cyprus, 9–11 Nov 2016, Proceedings. pp 659–676Google Scholar
- Ta+18 Ta Q-T, Le TC, Khoo S-C, Chin W-N (2018) Automated lemma synthesis in symbolic-heap separation logic. In: Symposium on principles of programming languages (POPL), pp 9:1–9:29Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Automated mutual induction proof in separation logic
Recommendations
Automated lemma synthesis in symbolic-heap separation logic
The symbolic-heap fragment of separation logic has been actively developed and advocated for verifying the memory-safety property of computer programs. At present, one of its biggest challenges is to effectively prove entailments containing inductive ...
Mathematical Induction in Otter-Lambda
Otter-lambda is Otter modified by adding code to implement an algorithm for lambda unification. Otter is a resolution-based, clause-language first-order prover that accumulates deduced clauses and uses strategies to control the deduction and retention ...
A Proof Procedure for Separation Logic with Inductive Definitions and Data
AbstractA proof procedure, in the spirit of the sequent calculus, is proposed to check the validity of entailments between Separation Logic formulas combining inductively defined predicates denoting structures of bounded tree width and theory reasoning. ...
Comments