Relational verification encompasses information flow security, regression verification, translation validation for compilers, and more. Effective alignment of the programs and computations to be related facilitates use of simpler relational invariants and relational procedure specs, which in turn enables automation and modular reasoning. Alignment has been explored in terms of trace pairs, deductive rules of relational Hoare logics (RHL), and several forms of product automata. This article shows how a simple extension of Kleene Algebra with Tests (KAT), called BiKAT, subsumes prior formulations, including alignment witnesses for forall-exists properties, which brings to light new RHL-style rules for such properties. Alignments can be discovered algorithmically or devised manually but, in either case, their adequacy with respect to the original programs must be proved; an explicit algebra enables constructive proof by equational reasoning. Furthermore our approach inherits algorithmic benefits from existing KAT-based techniques and tools, which are applicable to a range of semantic models.

There is growing interest in termination reasoning for nonlinear programs and, meanwhile, recent dynamic strategies have shown they are able to infer invariants for such challenging programs. These advances led us to hypothesize that perhaps such dynamic strategies for nonlinear invariants could be adapted to learn recurrent sets (for non-termination) and/or ranking functions (for termination). In this paper, we exploit dynamic analysis and draw termination and non-termination as well as static and dynamic strategies closer together in order to tackle nonlinear programs. For termination, our algorithm infers ranking functions from concrete transitive closures, and, for non-termination, the algorithm iteratively collects executions and dynamically learns conditions to refine recurrent sets. Finally, we describe an integrated algorithm that allows these algorithms to mutually inform each other, taking counterexamples from a failed validation in one endeavor and crossing both the static/dynamic and termination/non-termination lines, to create new execution samples for the other one. We have implemented these algorithms in a new tool called DynamiTe. For nonlinear programs, there are currently no SV-COMP termination benchmarks so we created new sets of 38 terminating and 39 non-terminating programs. Our empirical evaluation shows that we can effectively guess (and sometimes even validate) ranking functions and recurrent sets for programs with nonlinear behaviors. Furthermore, we show that counterexamples from one failed validation can be used to generate executions for a dynamic analysis of the opposite property. Although we are focused on nonlinear programs, as a point of comparison, we compare DynamiTe's performance on linear programs with that of the state-of-the-art tool, Ultimate. Although DynamiTe is an order of magnitude slower it is nonetheless somewhat competitive and sometimes finds ranking functions where Ultimate was unable to. Ultimate cannot, however, handle the nonlinear programs in our new benchmark suite.

We introduce a new dynamic analysis technique to discover invariants in separation logic for heap-manipulating programs. First, we use a debugger to obtain rich program execution traces at locations of interest on sample inputs. These traces consist of heap and stack information of variables that point to dynamically allocated data structures. Next, we iteratively analyze separate memory regions related to each pointer variable and search for a formula over predefined heap predicates in separation logic to model these regions. Finally, we combine the computed formulae into an invariant that describes the shape of explored memory regions.

SL-COMP aims at bringing together researchers interested on improving the state of the art of the automated deduction methods for Separation Logic (SL). The event took place twice until now and collected more than 1K problems for different fragments of SL. The input format of problems is based on the SMT-LIB format and therefore fully typed; only one new command is added to SMT-LIB’s list, the command for the declaration of the heap’s type. The SMT-LIB theory of SL comes with ten logics, some of them being combinations of SL with linear arithmetics. The competition’s divisions are defined by the logic fragment, the kind of decision problem (satisfiability or entailment) and the presence of quantifiers. Until now, SL-COMP has been run on the StarExec platform, where the benchmark set and the binaries of participant solvers are freely available. The benchmark set is also available with the competition’s documentation on a public repository in GitHub.

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.

The modern software engineering process is evolutionary, with commits/patches begetting new versions of code, progressing steadily toward improved systems. In recent years, program analysis and verification tools have exploited version-based reasoning, where new code can be seen in terms of how it has changed from the previous version. When considering program versions, refinement seems a natural fit and, in recent decades, researchers have weakened classical notions of concrete refinement and program equivalence to capture similarities as well as differences between programs. For example, Benton, Yang and others have worked on state-based refinement relations . In this paper, we explore a form of weak refinement based on trace relations rather than state relations. The idea begins by partitioning traces of a program C 1 into trace classes, each identified via a restriction r 1 . For each class, we specify similar behavior in the other program C 2 via a separate restriction r 2 on C 2 . Still, these two trace classes may not yet be equivalent so we further permit a weakening via a binary relation A on traces, that allows one to, for instance disregard unimportant events, relate analogous atomic events, etc. We address several challenges that arise. First, we explore one way to specify trace refinement relations by instantiating the framework to Kleene Algebra with Tests (KAT) due to Kozen. We use KAT intersection for restriction, KAT hypotheses for A , KAT inclusion for refinement, and have proved compositionality. Next, we present an algorithm for automatically synthesizing refinement relations, based on a mixture of semantic program abstraction, KAT inclusion, a custom edit-distance algorithm on counterexamples, and case-analysis on nondeterministic branching. We have proved our algorithm to be sound. Finally, we implemented our algorithm as a tool called Knotical, on top of Interproc and Symkat. We demonstrate promising first steps in synthesizing trace refinement relations across a hand-crafted collection of 37 benchmarks that include changing fragments of array programs, models of systems code, and examples inspired by the thttpd and Merecat web servers.

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 heap predicates. These entailments are usually proof obligations generated when verifying programs that manipulate complex data structures like linked lists, trees, or graphs. To assist in proving such entailments, this paper introduces a lemma synthesis framework, which automatically discovers lemmas to serve as eureka steps in the proofs. Mathematical induction and template-based constraint solving are two pillars of our framework. To derive the supporting lemmas for a given entailment, the framework firstly identifies possible lemma templates from the entailment's heap structure. It then sets up unknown relations among each template's variables and conducts structural induction proof to generate constraints about these relations. Finally, it solves the constraints to find out actual definitions of the unknown relations, thus discovers the lemmas. We have integrated this framework into a prototype prover and have experimented it on various entailment benchmarks. The experimental results show that our lemma-synthesis-assisted prover can prove many entailments that could not be handled by existing techniques. This new proposal opens up more opportunities to automatically reason with complex inductive heap predicates.

Techniques for proving termination and non-termination of imperative programs are usually considered as orthogonal mechanisms. In this paper, we propose a novel mechanism that analyzes and proves both program termination and non-termination at the same time. We first introduce the concept of second-order termination constraints and accumulate a set of relational assumptions on them via a Hoare-style verification. We then solve these assumptions with case analysis to determine the (conditional) termination and non- termination scenarios expressed in some specification logic form. In contrast to current approaches, our technique can construct a summary of terminating and non-terminating behaviors for each method. This enables modularity and reuse for our termination and non-termination proving processes. We have tested our tool on sample programs from a recent termination competition, and compared favorably against state-of-the-art termination analyzers.