Traditionally, proof systems such as program logics come with two core theorems: soundness and completeness . The role of soundness is obvious: we want to be sure that arguments carried out inside the logic actually lead to correct conclusions. Completeness complements that by ensuring that the logic does not limit expressivity: in principle, any correct result can be obtained within the confines of the logic. This result typically has to be stated relative to the completeness of the assertion logic that is used to reason about pre- and postconditions. Over the past decade, the Iris framework has emerged as a widely used foundation for building separation logics. While Iris-based logics typically come with a soundness proof, none of them have had a proof of completeness. In this paper, we present the first approach for establishing completeness of Iris-based program logics, and we show the generality of our methodology by applying it to a range of different logics described in prior work, including partial and total concurrent separation logics for a higher-order ML-like language, two quantitative logics (for bounding execution time and probabilistic errors), and a relational logic for proving refinement. All our results have been mechanized in the Rocq prover.

The Rust programming language is well known for its ownership-based type system, which offers strong guarantees like memory safety and data race freedom. However, Rust also provides unsafe escape hatches, for which safety is not guaranteed automatically and must instead be manually upheld by the programmer. This creates a tension. On the one hand, compilers would like to exploit the strong guarantees of the type system—particularly those pertaining to aliasing of pointers—in order to unlock powerful intraprocedural optimizations. On the other hand, those optimizations are easily invalidated by “badly behaved” unsafe code. To ensure correctness of such optimizations, it thus becomes necessary to clearly define what unsafe code is “badly behaved.” In prior work, Stacked Borrows defined a set of rules achieving this goal. However, Stacked Borrows rules out several patterns that turn out to be common in real-world unsafe Rust code, and it does not account for advanced features of the Rust borrow checker that were introduced more recently. To resolve these issues, we present Tree Borrows . As the name suggests, Tree Borrows is defined by replacing the stack at the heart of Stacked Borrows with a tree. This overcomes the aforementioned limitations: our evaluation on the 30 000 most widely used Rust crates shows that Tree Borrows rejects 54% fewer test cases than Stacked Borrows does. Additionally, we prove (in Rocq) that it retains most of the Stacked Borrows optimizations and also enables important new ones, notably read-read reorderings.

In recent years, there has been tremendous progress on developing program logics for verifying the correctness of programs in a rich and diverse array of languages. Thus far, however, such logics have assumed that programs are written entirely in a single programming language. In practice, this assumption rarely holds since programs are often composed of components written in different programming languages, which interact with one another via some kind of foreign function interface (FFI). In this paper, we take the first steps towards the goal of developing program logics for multi-language verification. Specifically, we present Melocoton, a multi-language program verification system for reasoning about OCaml, C, and their interactions through the OCaml FFI. Melocoton consists of the first formal semantics of (a large subset of) the OCaml FFI—previously only described in prose in the OCaml manual—as well as the first program logic to reason about the interactions of program components written in OCaml and C. Melocoton is fully mechanized in Coq on top of the Iris separation logic framework.