An expanded version of Semantics for Linear-time Temporal Logic with Finite Observations.

Linear-time temporal properties, such as those described by Linear-time Temporal Logic, are typically modelled as sets of infinite traces. Yet, in a run-time verification context, such as when testing or monitoring a system, only a finite prefix of the system’s behaviour can be observed. For some properties, these finite prefixes may be definitive—a yes or no answer can be given without further observation. By enriching the semantics of LTL with these definitive prefixes, we give a proper inductive accounting of the semantics of LTL3, a multi-valued variant of Linear-time Temporal Logic for run-time verification applications. The semantic descriptions of LTL3 in previous work are given only in terms of their relationship to conventional LTL. We show that the semantics of LTL and of LTL3 are isomorphic. In addition, we formalise the formula progression evaluation technique, popularly used in runtime verification contexts, and show its soundness and completeness up to finite traces with respect to our semantics. Then, we turn to linear-time properties more generally: using our theory of definitive prefixes, we re-prove the well-known safety-liveness decomposition theorem, and reconstruct the topology of infinite traces. We define monitorability for properties, providing neat topological characterisations for various monitorability classes, and arrange them into a hierarchy. All of our definitions and proofs are mechanised in Isabelle/HOL.

Programming languages with uniqueness type systems prevent pointer aliasing, simplifying memory safety reasoning. However, code implemented in these languages often interoperates through foreign function interfaces with external components implemented in languages lacking the same level of static safety guarantees. To verify safe updates in a combined system, one must manually verify that the external components preserve the safety invariants of the uniqueness type system. In particular, recent work showed that one can manually discharge such obligations on C components from a cross-language Cogent-C system by directly reasoning about the C code in higher-order logic. However, even for simple examples, discharging the uniqueness safety obligations, known as frame conditions, within a logic not specifically designed for direct reasoning in terms of heaps and pointers was not ideal. Separation logic is an established logic that facilitates reasoning about imperative programs by localising reasoning to the parts of the heap that the program mutates. This raises a vital question. Can we use separation logic to discharge the safety obligations imposed by uniqueness types? The answer is yes. This paper demonstrates that the frame conditions can be inferred from particular separation logic triples and, hence, discharged by reasoning using separation logic. We identify and verify the soundness of specific separation logic triples that imply the frame conditions imposed by a uniqueness type system.

LTL3 is a multi-valued variant of Linear-time Temporal Logic for runtime verification applications. The semantic descriptions of LTL3 in previous work are given only in terms of the relationship to conventional LTL. Our approach, by contrast, gives a full model-based inductive accounting of the semantics of LTL3, in terms of families of definitive prefix sets. We show that our definitive prefix sets are isomorphic to linear-time temporal properties (sets of infinite traces), and thereby show that our semantics of LTL3 directly correspond to the semantics of conventional LTL. In addition, we formalise the formula progression evaluation technique, popularly used in runtime verification and testing contexts, and show its soundness and completeness up to finite traces with respect to our semantics. All of our definitions and proofs are mechanised in Isabelle/HOL.

Rewriting is a versatile and powerful technique used in many domains. Strategic rewriting allows programmers to control the application of rewrite rules by composing individual rewrite rules into complex rewrite strategies. These strategies are semantically complex, as they may be nondeterministic, they may raise errors that trigger backtracking, and they may not terminate.

Given such semantic complexity, it is necessary to establish a formal understanding of rewrite strategies and to enable reasoning about them in order to answer questions like: How do we know that a rewrite strategy terminates? How do we know that a rewrite strategy does not fail because we compose two incompatible rewrites? How do we know that a desired property holds after applying a rewrite strategy?

In this paper, we introduce Shoggoth: a formal foundation for understanding, analysing and reasoning about strategic rewriting that is capable of answering these questions. We provide a denotational semantics of System S, a core language for strategic rewriting, and prove its equivalence to our big-step operational semantics, which extends existing work by explicitly accounting for divergence. We further define a location-based weakest precondition calculus to enable formal reasoning about rewriting strategies, and we prove this calculus sound with respect to the denotational semantics. We show how this calculus can be used in practice to reason about properties of rewriting strategies, including termination, that they are well-composed, and that desired postconditions hold. The semantics and calculus are formalised in Isabelle/HOL and all proofs are mechanised.

Systems programmers need fine-grained control over the memory layout of data structures, both to produce performant code and to comply with well-defined interfaces imposed by existing code, standardised protocols or hardware. Code that manipulates these low-level representations in memory is hard to get right. Traditionally, this problem is addressed by the implementation of tedious marshalling code to convert between compiler-selected data representations and the desired compact data formats. Such marshalling code is error-prone and can lead to a significant runtime overhead due to excessive copying. While there are many languages and systems that address the correctness issue, by automating the generation and, in some cases, the verification of the marshalling code, the performance overhead introduced by the marshalling code remains. In particular for systems code, this overhead can be prohibitive. In this work, we address both the correctness and the performance problems.

We present a data layout description language and data refinement framework, called Dargent, which allows programmers to declaratively specify how algebraic data types are laid out in memory. Our solution is applied to the Cogent language, but the general ideas behind our solution are applicable to other settings. The Dargent framework generates C code that manipulates data directly with the desired memory layout, while retaining the formal proof that this generated C code is correct with respect to the functional semantics. This added expressivity removes the need for implementing and verifying marshalling code, which eliminates copying, smoothens interoperability with surrounding systems, and increases the trustworthiness of the overall system.

Property-based testing (PBT) is a powerful tool that is widely available in modern programming languages. It has been used to reduce formal software verification effort. We demonstrate how PBT can be used in conjunction with formal verification to incrementally gain greater assurance in code correctness by integrating PBT into the verification framework of Cogent---a programming language equipped with a certifying compiler for developing high-assurance systems components. Specifically, for PBT and formal verification to work in tandem, we structure the tests to mirror the refinement proof that we used in Cogent's verification framework: The expected behaviour of the system under test is captured by a functional correctness specification, which mimics the formal specification of the system, and we test the refinement relation between the implementation and the specification. We exhibit the additional benefits that this mutualism brings to developers and demonstrate the techniques we used in this style of PBT, by studying two concrete examples.

We present Quickstrom, a property-based testing system for acceptance testing of interactive applications. Using Quickstrom, programmers can specify the behaviour of web applications as properties in our testing-oriented dialect of Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) called QuickLTL, and then automatically test their application against the given specification with hundreds of automatically generated interactions. QuickLTL extends existing finite variants of LTL for the testing use-case, determining likely outcomes from partial traces whose minimum length is itself determined by the LTL formula. This temporal logic is embedded in our specification language, Specstrom, which is designed to be approachable to web programmers, expressive for writing specifications, and easy to analyse. Because Quickstrom tests only user-facing behaviour, it is agnostic to the implementation language of the system under test. We therefore formally specify and test many implementations of the popular TodoMVC benchmark, used for evaluation and comparison across various web frontend frameworks and languages. Our tests uncovered bugs in almost half of the available implementations.

Cogent is a restricted functional language designed to reduce the cost of developing verified systems code. Because of its sometimes-onerous restrictions, such as the lack of support for recursion and its strict uniqueness type system, Cogent provides an escape hatch in the form of a foreign function interface (FFI) to C code. This poses a problem when verifying Cogent programs, as imported C components do not enjoy the same level of static guarantees that Cogent does. Previous verification of file systems implemented in Cogent merely assumed that their C components were correct and that they preserved the invariants of Cogent’s type system. In this paper, we instead prove such obligations. We demonstrate how they smoothly compose with existing Cogent theorems, and result in a correctness theorem of the overall Cogent-C system. The Cogent FFI constraints ensure that key invariants of Cogent’s type system are maintained even when calling C code. We verify reusable higher-order and polymorphic functions including a generic loop combinator and array iterators and demonstrate their application to several examples including binary search and the BilbyFs file system. We demonstrate the feasibility of verification of mixed Cogent-C systems, and provide some insight into verification of software comprised of code in multiple languages with differing levels of static guarantees.

This paper presents a framework aimed at significantly reducing the cost of proving functional correctness for low-level operating systems components. The framework is designed around a new functional programming language, Cogent. A central aspect of the language is its uniqueness type system, which eliminates the need for a trusted runtime or garbage collector while still guaranteeing memory safety, a crucial property for safety and security. Moreover, it allows us to assign two semantics to the language: The first semantics is imperative, suitable for efficient C code generation, and the second is purely functional, providing a user-friendly interface for equational reasoning and verification of higher-level correctness properties. The refinement theorem connecting the two semantics allows the compiler to produce a proof via translation validation certifying the correctness of the generated C code with respect to the semantics of the Cogent source program. We have demonstrated the effectiveness of our framework for implementation and for verification through two file system implementations.

This paper is largely based on my PhD Thesis.

A commonly-used technique in dependently-typed programming is to encode invariants about a data structure into its type, thus ensuring that the data structure is correct by construction. Unfortunately, this often necessitates the embedding of explicit proof terms within the data structure, which are not part of the structure conceptually, but merely supplied to ensure that the data invariants are maintained. As the complexity of the specifications in the types increases, these additional terms tend to clutter definitions, reducing readability. We introduce a technique where these proof terms can be supplied later, by constructing the data structure within a proof delay applicative functor. We apply this technique to Trip, our new language for Hoare-logic verification of imperative programs embedded in Agda, where our applicative functor is used as the basis for a verification condition generator, turning the typed holes of Agda into a method for stepwise derivation of a program from its specification in the form of a Hoare triple.

Property-based testing can play an important role in reducing the cost of formal verification: It has been demonstrated to be effective at detecting bugs and finding inconsistencies in specifications, and thus can eliminate effort wasted on fruitless proof attempts. We argue that in addition, property-based testing enables an incremental approach to a fully verified system, by allowing replacement of automatically generated tests of properties stated in the specification by formal proofs. We demonstrate this approach on the verification of systems code, discuss the implications on systems design, and outline the integration of property-based testing into the Cogent framework.

In this paper, we develop a library of typed proof search procedures, and demonstrate their remarkable utility as a mechanism for proof-search and automation. We describe a framework for describing proof-search procedures in Agda, with a library of tactical combinators based on applicative functors. This framework is very general, so we demonstrate the approach with two common applications from the field of software verification: a library for property-based testing in the style of SmallCheck, and the embedding of a basic model checker inside our framework, which we use to verify the correctness of common concurrency algorithms.

We present a framework aimed at significantly reducing the cost of verifying certain classes of systems software, such as file systems. Our framework allows for equational reasoning about systems code written in our new language, Cogent. Cogent is a restricted, polymorphic, higher-order, and purely functional language with linear types and without the need for a trusted runtime or garbage collector. Linear types allow us to assign two semantics to the language: one imperative, suitable for efficient C code generation; and one functional, suitable for equational reasoning and verification. As Cogent is a restricted language, it is designed to easily interoperate with existing C functions and to connect to existing C verification frameworks. Our framework is based on certifying compilation: For a well-typed Cogent program, our compiler produces C code, a high-level shallow embedding of its semantics in Isabelle/HOL, and a proof that the C code correctly refines this embedding. Thus one can reason about the full semantics of real-world systems code productively and equationally, while retaining the interoperability and leanness of C. The compiler certificate is a series of language-level proofs and per-program translation validation phases, combined into one coherent top-level theorem in Isabelle/HOL.

Our language Cogent simplifies verification of systems software using a certifying compiler, which produces a proof that the generated C code is a refinement of the original Cogent program. Despite the fact that Cogent itself contains a number of refinement layers, the semantic gap between even the lowest level of Cogent semantics and the generated C code remains large. In this paper we close this gap with an automated refinement framework which validates the compiler’s code generation phase. This framework makes use of existing C verification tools and introduces a new technique to relate the type systems of Cogent and C.

We present an approach to writing and formally verifying high-assurance file-system code in a restricted language called Cogent, supported by a certifying compiler that produces C code, high-level specification of Cogent, and translation correctness proofs. The language is strongly typed and guarantees absence of a number of common file system implementation errors. We show how verification effort is drastically reduced for proving higher-level properties of the file system implementation by reasoning about the generated formal specification rather than its low-level C code. We use the framework to write two Linux file systems, and compare their performance with their native C implementations.

File systems are too important, and current ones are too buggy, to remain unverified. Yet the most successful verification methods for functional correctness remain too expensive for current file system implementations --- we need verified correctness but at reasonable cost. This paper presents our vision and ongoing work to achieve this goal for a new high-performance flash file system, called BilbyFs. BilbyFs is carefully designed to be highly modular, so it can be verified against a high-level functional specification one component at a time. This modular implementation is captured in a set of domain specific languages from which we produce the design-level specification, as well as its optimised C implementation. Importantly, we also automatically generate the proof linking these two artefacts. The combination of these features dramatically reduces verification effort. Verified file systems are now within reach for the first time.