Peter O'Hearn
Abstract
Separation logic is a key development in formal reasoning about programs, opening up new lines of attack on longstanding problems.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
Supplemental material.
References
- Appel, A.W. Program Logics for Certified Compilers. Cambridge University Press, U.K., 2014. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Berdine, J. Calcagno, C. and O'Hearn, P.W. Smallfoot: Modular automatic assertion checking with separation logic. LNCS FMCO 4111 (2005) 115--137, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Berdine, J., Cook, B. and Ishtiaq, S. SLAyer: Memory safety for systems-level code. In Proceedings of CAV, 2011, 178--183. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Beringer, L., Petcher, A., Ye, K.Q. and Appel, A.W. Verified correctness and security of OpenSSL HMAC. In Proceedings of 24<sup>th</sup> USENIX Security Symposium, 2015, 207--221. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Biering, B., Birkedal, L. and Torp-Smith, N. BI-hyperdoctrines, higher-order separation logic, and abstraction. ACM TOPLAS 29, 4 (2007). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bornat, R. Proving pointer programs in Hoare logic. LNCS MPC 1837 (2000) 102--126. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bornat, R., Calcagno, C., O'Hearn, P.W. and Parkinson, M.J. Permission accounting in separation logic. In Proceedings of POPL, 2005, 259--270. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brookes, S. A semantics for concurrent separation logic. Theor. Comput. Sci., 375, 1--3 (2007), 227--270. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brookes, S. and O'Hearn, P.W. Concurrent separation logic. SIGLOG News 3, 3 (2016), 47--65. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Burstall, R.M. Some techniques for proving correctness of programs which alter data structures. Machine Intelligence 7, 1 (1972), 23--50.Google Scholar
- Calcagno, C. et al. Moving fast with software verification. In Proceedings of NASA Formal Methods Symposium, 2015, 3--11.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Calcagno, C., Distefano, D., O'Hearn, P.W. and Yang, H. Compositional shape analysis by means of bi-abduction. J. ACM 58, 6 (2011), 26. Preliminary version in Proceedings of POPL'09. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Calcagno, C., O'Hearn, P.W. and Yang, H. Local action and abstract separation logic. LICS, 2007, 366--378. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chen, H., Ziegler, F., Chajed, T., Chlipala, A., Kaashoek, M.F. and Zeldovich, N. Using Crash Hoare logic for certifying the FSCQ file system. In Proceedings of SOSP, pages 18--37, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cousot, P. and Cousot, R. Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In Proceedings of POPL, 1977, 238--252. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dijkstra, E.W. Cooperating sequential processes. Programming Languages, Academic Press, 1968, 43--112.Google Scholar
- Dinsdale-Young, T., Birkedal, L., Gardner, P., Parkinson, M.J. and Yang, H. Views: Compositional reasoning for concurrent programs. In Proceedings of POPL, 2013, 287--300. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dinsdale-Young, T., Dodds, M., Gardner, M., Parkinson, M.J. and Vafeiadis, V. Concurrent abstract predicates. In Proceedings of ECOOP, 2010, 504--528. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dinsdale-Young, T., Gardner, P. and Wheelhouse, M.J. Abstraction and refinement for local reasoning. In Proceedings of VSTTE, 2010, 199--215. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Distefano, D., O'Hearn, P.W. and Yang, H. A local shape analysis based on separation logic. In Proceedings of TACAS, 2006, 287--302. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Floyd, R.W. Assigning meanings to programs. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Mathematics. J.T. Schwartz, ed. AMS, 1967, 19--32.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hoare, C.A.R. An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12, 10 (1969), 576--580. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hoare, C.A.R. Towards a theory of parallel programming. Operating Systems Techniques. Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
- Hoare, T., Möller, B., Struth, G. and Wehrman, I. Concurrent Kleene algebra and its foundations. J. Log. Algebr. Program 80, 6 (2011), 266--296.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hobor, A. and Villard, J. The ramifications of sharing in data structures. In Proceedings of 40<sup>th</sup> POPL, 2013, 523--536. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ishtiaq, S.S. and O'Hearn, P.W. BI as an assertion language for mutable data structures. In Proceedings of POPL, 2001, 14--26. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jones, C.B. Specification and design of (parallel) programs. In Proceedings of IFIP Congress, 1983, 321--332.Google Scholar
- Jung, R. Jourdan, J.-H., Krebbers, R. and Dreyer. D. RustBelt: Securing the foundations of the Rust programming language. In Proceedings of PACMPL, 2018. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Krebbers, R., Jung, R., Bizjak, A., Jourdan, J-H, Dreyer, D. and Birkedal, L. The essence of higher-order concurrent separation logic. In Proceedings of ESOP, 2017, 696--723. Google ScholarDigital Library
- O'Hearn, P.W. Resources, concurrency, and local reasoning. Theor. Comput. Sci. 375, 1--3 (2007), 271--307. Google ScholarDigital Library
- O'Hearn, P.W and Pym, D.J. The logic of bunched implications. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 5, 2 (1999), 215--244.Google ScholarCross Ref
- O'Hearn, P.W., Reynolds, J.C. and Yang, H. Local reasoning about programs that alter data structures. In Proceedings of CSL, 2001, 1--19. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Parkinson. M.J. Local reasoning for Java. Ph.D. thesis. University of Cambridge, U.K., 2005.Google Scholar
- Parkinson, M.J., Bornat, R. and Calcagno, C. Variables as resource in Hoare logics. In Proceedings of 21<sup>st</sup> LIC, 2006, 137--146. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Philippaerts, P., Mühlberg, J.T., Penninckx, W., Smans, J., Jacobs, B. and Piessens, F. Software verification with verifast: Industrial case studies. Sci. Comput. Program. 82 (2014), 77--97. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pym, D., O'Hearn, P. and Yang, H. Possible worlds and resources: The semantics of BI. Theoret. Comp. Sci. 315, 1 (2004), 257--305. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Reynolds, J,C. Intuitionistic reasoning about shared mutable data structure. Millennial Perspectives in Computer Science, Cornerstones of Computing. Palgrave Macmillan, 2000.Google Scholar
- Reynolds, J.C. Separation logic: A logic for shared mutable data structures. LICS, 2002, 55--74. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sergey, I., Nanevski, A. and Banerjee, A. Mechanized verification of fine-grained concurrent programs. In Proceedings of 36<sup>th</sup> PLDI, 2015, 77--87. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Turing, A.M. Checking a large routine. Report of a Conference on High-Speed Automatic Calculating Machines. Univ. Math. Lab., Cambridge, U.K., 1949, 67--69.Google Scholar
- Xu, F., Fu, M., Feng, X., Zhang, X., Zhang, H. and Li, Z. A practical verification framework for preemptive OS kernels. In Proceedings of CAV, 2016.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yang, H. Local Reasoning for Stateful Programs. Ph.D. thesis. University of Illinois, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yang, H., Lee, O., Berdine, J., Calcagno, C., Cook, B., Distefano, D. and O'Hearn, P.W. Scalable shape analysis for systems code. In Proceedings of CAV, 2008, 385--398. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yang, H. and O'Hearn, P.W. A semantic basis for local reasoning. In Proceedings of FoSSaCS, 2002, 402--416. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
Separation logic
Reviews
A. Squassabia
Formal reasoning about mutable data can be difficult when concurrency is present, for instance, when attempting mutation of the same data at the same time from multiple processors; or when aliasing is present, for instance, when the same data is non-local and mutation occurs within possibly sequential but independent contexts. This paper is a cursory introduction to, and a historical overview of, separation logic: a formal framework for reasoning about mutable data under concurrency. The reader interested in a deeper treatment will be pleased with the large and encompassing set of references provided. Separation logic allows for the construction of internally consistent models that, after excluding aliasing, provide formal means for either mechanical or human-assisted verification of the correctness of code. Past attempts at formal reasoning encompassing aliasing proved to be less fruitful than separation logic, which in turn, over the last couple of decades, has evolved into software tools of practical utility. The principles backing this value insist on developments affording the ability of separation logic to constrain reasoning within a local scope; to establish artifact ownership; to generate preconditions with mechanized reasoning; and to analyze code fragments compositionally-as opposed to needing to digest an entire code base. This latter ability in particular enables analysis to scale incrementally, validating larger codes a cluster at a time. According to the authors, there are vast opportunities for further work in this field. Progress with practical applications could be a panacea. As an observation, formal verification of correct behavior under partial failure was neither excluded nor explicitly mentioned as an area of opportunity for further work.
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments