Many important functional and security properties—including non-interference, determinism, and generalized non-interference (GNI)—are hyperproperties, i.e., properties relating multiple executions of a program. Existing separation logics allow one to reason about specific classes of hyperproperties, e.g., ∀∀-hyperproperties such as non-interference and ∃∃-properties such as non-determinism. However, they do not support quantifier alternation, which is for instance needed to express GNI. The only existing logic that can reason about such properties is Hyper Hoare Logic, but it does not support heap-manipulating programs and, thus, is not applicable to common imperative programs. This paper introduces Hyper Separation Logic (HSL), the first program logic that supports modular reasoning about hyperproperties with arbitrary quantifier alternation over programs that manipulate the heap. HSL generalizes Hyper Hoare Logic with a novel hyper separating conjunction that lifts the standard separating conjunction to sets of states, enabling a generalized frame rule for hyperproperties. We prove HSL sound in Isabelle/HOL and demonstrate its expressiveness for hyperproperties that lie beyond the reach of existing separation logics.

Program verification tools are often implemented as front-end translations of an input program into an intermediate verification language (IVL) such as Boogie, GIL, Viper, or Why3. The resulting IVL program is then verified using an existing back-end verifier. A soundness proof for such a translational verifier needs to relate the input program and verification logic to the semantics of the IVL, which in turn needs to be connected with the verification logic implemented in the back-end verifiers. Performing such proofs is challenging due to the large semantic gap between the input and output programs and logics, especially for complex verification logics such as separation logic. This paper presents a formal framework for reasoning about translational separation logic verifiers. At its center is a generic core IVL that captures the essence of different separation logics. We define its operational semantics and formally connect it to two different back-end verifiers, which use symbolic execution and verification condition generation, resp. Crucially, this semantics uses angelic non-determinism to enable the application of different proof search algorithms and heuristics in the back-end verifiers. An axiomatic semantics for the core IVL simplifies reasoning about the front-end translation by performing essential proof steps once and for all in the equivalence proof with the operational semantics rather than for each concrete front-end translation. We illustrate the usefulness of our formal framework by instantiating our core IVL with elements of Viper and connecting it to two Viper back-ends as well as a front-end for concurrent separation logic. All our technical results have been formalized in Isabelle/HOL, including the core IVL and its semantics, the semantics of two back-ends for a subset of Viper, and all proofs.

PulseCore is a new program logic suitable for intrinsic proofs of higher-order, stateful, concurrent, dependently typed programs. It provides many of the features of a modern, concurrent separation logic, including dynamically allocated impredicative invariants, higher-order ghost state, step-indexing with later credits, and support for user-defined ghost state constructions. PulseCore is developed foundationally within the F ⋆ programming language with fully mechanized proofs, and is applicable to F ⋆ programs itself. To evaluate our work, we use Pulse , a surface language within F ⋆ for PulseCore , to develop a range of program proofs. Illustrating its suitability for proving higher-order concurrent programs, we present a verified library for task pools in the style of OCaml5, together with some verified task-parallel programs. Next, we present various data structures and synchronization primitives, including a barrier that requires the use of higher-order ghost state. Finally, we present a verified implementation of the DICE Protection Environment, an industry standard secure boot protocol. Taken together, our evaluation consists of more than 31,000 lines of verified code in a range of settings, providing evidence that PulseCore is both highly expressive as well as practical for a variety of program proof applications.

Hyperproperties relate multiple executions of a program and are useful to express common correctness properties (such as determinism) and security properties (such as non-interference). While there are a number of powerful program logics for the deductive verification of hyperproperties, their automation falls behind. Most existing deductive verification tools are limited to safety properties, but cannot reason about the existence of executions, for instance, to prove the violation of a safety property. Others support more flexible hyperproperties such as generalized non-interference, but have limitations in terms of the programs and proof structures they support. In this paper, we present the first deductive verification technique for arbitrary hyperproperties over multiple executions of the same program. Our technique automates the generation of verification conditions for Hyper Hoare Logic. Our key insight is that arbitrary hyperproperties and the corresponding proof rules can be encoded into a standard intermediate verification language by representing sets of states of the input program explicitly in the states of the intermediate program. Verification is then automated using an existing SMT-based verifier for the intermediate language. We implement our technique in a tool called Hypra and demonstrate that it can reliably verify complex hyperproperties.

Hoare logics are proof systems that allowone to formally establish properties of computer programs. Traditional Hoare logics prove properties of individual program executions (such as functional correctness). Hoare logic has been generalized to prove also properties of multiple executions of a program (so-called hyperproperties, such as determinism or non-interference). These program logics prove the absence of (bad combinations of) executions. On the other hand, program logics similar to Hoare logic have been proposed to disprove program properties (e.g., Incorrectness Logic), by proving the existence of (bad combinations of) executions. All of these logics have in common that they specify program properties using assertions over a fixed number of states, for instance, a single pre- and post-state for functional properties or pairs of pre- and post-states for non-interference. In this paper, we present Hyper Hoare Logic, a generalization of Hoare logic that lifts assertions to properties of arbitrary sets of states. The resulting logic is simple yet expressive: its judgments can express arbitrary program hyperproperties , a particular class of hyperproperties over the set of terminating executions of a program (including properties of individual program executions). By allowing assertions to reason about sets of states, Hyper Hoare Logic can reason about both the absence and the existence of (combinations of) executions, and, thereby, supports both proving and disproving program (hyper-)properties within the same logic, including (hyper-)properties that no existing Hoare logic can express. We prove that Hyper Hoare Logic is sound and complete, and demonstrate that it captures important proof principles naturally. All our technical results have been proved in Isabelle/HOL.

Automated program verifiers are typically implemented using an intermediate verification language (IVL), such as Boogie or Why3. A verifier front-end translates the input program and specification into an IVL program, while the back-end generates proof obligations for the IVL program and employs an SMT solver to discharge them. Soundness of such verifiers therefore requires that the front-end translation faithfully captures the semantics of the input program and specification in the IVL program, and that the back-end reports success only if the IVL program is actually correct. For a verification tool to be trustworthy, these soundness conditions must be satisfied by its actual implementation , not just the program logic it uses. In this paper, we present a novel validation methodology that, given a formal semantics for the input language and IVL, provides formal soundness guarantees for front-end implementations. For each run of the verifier, we automatically generate a proof in Isabelle showing that the correctness of the produced IVL program implies the correctness of the input program. This proof can be checked independently from the verifier, in Isabelle, and can be combined with existing work on validating back-ends to obtain an end-to-end soundness result. Our methodology based on forward simulation employs several modularisation strategies to handle the large semantic gap between the input language and the IVL, as well as the intricacies of practical, optimised translations. We present our methodology for the widely-used Viper and Boogie languages. Our evaluation shows that it is effective in validating the translations performed by the existing Viper implementation.

Bounded verification has proved useful to detect bugs and to increase confidence in the correctness of a program. In contrast to unbounded verification, reasoning about calls via (bounded) inlining and about loops via (bounded) unrolling does not require method specifications and loop invariants and, therefore, reduces the annotation overhead to the bare minimum, namely specifications of the properties to be verified. For verifiers based on traditional program logics, verification is preserved by inlining (and unrolling): successful unbounded verification of a program w.r.t. some annotation implies successful verification of the inlined program. That is, any error detected in the inlined program reveals a true error in the original program. However, this essential property might not hold for automatic separation logic verifiers such as Caper, GRASShopper, RefinedC, Steel, VeriFast, and verifiers based on Viper. In this setting, inlining generally changes the resources owned by method executions, which may affect automatic proof search algorithms and introduce spurious errors. In this paper, we present the first technique for verification-preserving inlining in automatic separation logic verifiers. We identify a semantic condition on programs and prove in Isabelle/HOL that it ensures verification-preserving inlining for state-of-the-art automatic separation logic verifiers. We also prove a dual result: successful verification of the inlined program ensures that there are method and loop annotations that enable the verification of the original program for bounded executions. To check our semantic condition automatically, we present two approximations that can be checked syntactically and with a program verifier, respectively. We implement these checks in Viper and demonstrate that they are effective for non-trivial examples from different verifiers.

Information flow security ensures that the secret data manipulated by a program does not influence its observable output. Proving information flow security is especially challenging for concurrent programs, where operations on secret data may influence the execution time of a thread and, thereby, the interleaving between different threads. Such internal timing channels may affect the observable outcome of a program even if an attacker does not observe execution times. Existing verification techniques for information flow security in concurrent programs attempt to prove that secret data does not influence the relative timing of threads. However, these techniques are often restrictive (for instance because they disallow branching on secret data) and make strong assumptions about the execution platform (ignoring caching, processor instructions with data-dependent runtime, and other common features that affect execution time). In this paper, we present a novel verification technique for secure information flow in concurrent programs that lifts these restrictions and does not make any assumptions about timing behavior. The key idea is to prove that all mutating operations performed on shared data commute, such that different thread interleavings do not influence its final value. Crucially, commutativity is required only for an abstraction of the shared data that contains the information that will be leaked to a public output. Abstract commutativity is satisfied by many more operations than standard commutativity, which makes our technique widely applicable. We formalize our technique in CommCSL, a relational concurrent separation logic with support for commutativity-based reasoning, and prove its soundness in Isabelle/HOL. We implemented CommCSL in HyperViper, an automated verifier based on the Viper verification infrastructure, and demonstrate its ability to verify challenging examples.

Abstract The magic wand $$\mathbin {-\!\!*}$$ -∗ (also called separating implication) is a separation logic connective commonly used to specify properties of partial data structures, for instance during iterative traversals. Afootprintof a magic wand formula "Equation missing"is a state that, combined with any state in whichAholds, yields a state in whichBholds. The key challenge of proving a magic wand (also calledpackaginga wand) is to find such a footprint. Existing package algorithms either have a high annotation overhead or, as we show in this paper, are unsound. We present a formal framework that precisely characterises a wide design space of possible package algorithms applicable to a large class of separation logics. We prove in Isabelle/HOL that our formal framework is sound and complete, and use it to develop a novel package algorithm that offers competitive automation and is sound. Moreover, we present a novel, restricted definition of wands and prove in Isabelle/HOL that it is possible to soundly combine fractions of such wands, which is not the case for arbitrary wands. We have implemented our techniques for the Viper language, and demonstrate that they are effective in practice.

Many separation logics support fractional permissions to distinguish between read and write access to a heap location, for instance, to allow concurrent reads while enforcing exclusive writes. Fractional permissions extend to composite assertions such as (co)inductive predicates and magic wands by allowing those to be multiplied by a fraction. Typical separation logic proofs require that this multiplication has three key properties: it needs to distribute over assertions, it should permit fractions to be factored out from assertions, and two fractions of the same assertion should be combinable into one larger fraction. Existing formal semantics incorporating fractional assertions into a separation logic define multiplication semantically (via models), resulting in a semantics in which distributivity and combinability do not hold for key resource assertions such as magic wands, and fractions cannot be factored out from a separating conjunction. By contrast, existing automatic separation logic verifiers define multiplication syntactically, resulting in a different semantics for which it is unknown whether distributivity and combinability hold for all assertions. In this paper, we present a novel semantics for separation logic assertions that allows states to hold more than a full permission to a heap location during the evaluation of an assertion. By reimposing upper bounds on the permissions held per location at statement boundaries, we retain key properties of separation logic, in particular, the frame rule. Our assertion semantics unifies semantic and syntactic multiplication and thereby reconciles the discrepancy between separation logic theory and tools and enjoys distributivity, factorisability, and combinability. We have formalised our semantics and proved its properties in Isabelle/HOL.

Evolutionary algorithms, being problem-independent and randomized heuristics, are generally believed to be robust to dynamic changes and noisy access to the problem instance. We propose a new method to obtain rigorous runtime results for such settings. In contrast to many previous works, our new approach mostly relies on general parameters of the dynamics or the noise models, such as the expected change of the dynamic optimum or the probability to have a dynamic change in one iteration. Consequently, we obtain bounds which are valid for large varieties of such models. Despite this generality, for almost all particular models regarded in the past our bounds are stronger than those given in previous works. As one particular result, we prove that the (1 + λ) EA can optimize the OneMax benchmark function efficiently despite a constant rate of 1-bit flip noise. For this, a logarithmic size offspring population suffices (the previous-best result required a super-linear value of λ). Our results suggest that the typical way to find the optimum in such adverse settings is not via a steady approach of the optimum, but rather via an exceptionally fast approach after waiting for a rare phase of low dynamic changes or noise.