Existing semantic formalisations of the Intel-x86 architecture cover only a small fragment of its available features that are relevant for the consistency semantics of multi-threaded programs as well as the persistency semantics of programs interfacing with non-volatile memory. We extend these formalisations to cover: (1) non-temporal writes, which provide higher performance and are used to ensure that updates are flushed to memory; (2) reads and writes to other Intel-x86 memory types, namely uncacheable, write-combined, and write-through; as well as (3) the interaction between these features. We develop our formal model in both operational and declarative styles, and prove that the two characterisations are equivalent. We have empirically validated our formalisation of the consistency semantics of these additional features and their subtle interactions by extensive testing on different Intel-x86 implementations.

We report on the process for formal concurrency modelling at Arm. An initial formal consistency model of the Arm achitecture, written in the cat language, was published and upstreamed to the herd+diy tool suite in 2017. Since then, we have extended the original model with extra features, for example, mixed-size accesses, and produced two provably equivalent alternative formulations. In this article, we present a comprehensive review of work done at Arm on the consistency model. Along the way, we also show that our principle for handling mixed-size accesses applies to x86: We confirm this via vast experimental campaigns. We also show that our alternative formulations are applicable to any model phrased in a style similar to the one chosen by Arm.

Abstract Computing relies on architecture specifications to decouple hardware and software development. Historically these have been prose documents, with all the problems that entails, but research over the last ten years has developed rigorous and executable-as-test-oracle specifications of mainstream architecture instruction sets and “user-mode” concurrency, clarifying architectures and bringing them into the scope of programming-language semantics and verification. However, the system semantics, of instruction-fetch and cache maintenance, exceptions and interrupts, and address translation, remains obscure, leaving us without a solid foundation for verification of security-critical systems software. In this paper we establish a robust model for one aspect of system semantics: instruction fetch and cache maintenance for ARMv8-A. Systems code relies on executing instructions that were written by data writes, e.g. in program loading, dynamic linking, JIT compilation, debugging, and OS configuration, but hardware implementations are often highly optimised, e.g. with instruction caches, linefill buffers, out-of-order fetching, branch prediction, and instruction prefetching, which can affect programmer-observable behaviour. It is essential, both for programming and verification, to abstract from such microarchitectural details as much as possible, but no more. We explore the key architecture design questions with a series of examples, discussed in detail with senior Arm staff; capture the architectural intent in operational and axiomatic semantic models, extending previous work on “user-mode” concurrency; make these models executable as test oracles for small examples; and experimentally validate them against hardware behaviour (finding a bug in one hardware device). We thereby bring these subtle issues into the mathematical domain, clarifying the architecture and enabling future work on system software verification.

Concurrency in the Linux kernel can be a contentious topic. The Linux kernel mailing list features numerous discussions related to consistency models, including those of the more than 30 CPU architectures supported by the kernel and that of the kernel itself. How are Linux programs supposed to behave? Do they behave correctly on exotic hardware? A formal model can help address such questions. Better yet, an executable model allows programmers to experiment with the model to develop their intuition. Thus we offer a model written in the cat language, making it not only formal, but also executable by the herd simulator. We tested our model against hardware and refined it in consultation with maintainers. Finally, we formalised the fundamental law of the Read-Copy-Update synchronisation mechanism, and proved that one of its implementations satisfies this law.

Previous work on the semantics of relaxed shared-memory concurrency has only considered the case in which each load reads the data of exactly one store. In practice, however, multiprocessors support mixed-size accesses, and these are used by systems software and (to some degree) exposed at the C/C++ language level. A semantic foundation for software, therefore, has to address them.

In this paper we develop semantics for key aspects of the ARMv8 multiprocessor architecture: the concurrency model and much of the 64-bit application-level instruction set (ISA). Our goal is to clarify what the range of architecturally allowable behaviour is, and thereby to support future work on formal verification, analysis, and testing of concurrent ARM software and hardware. Establishing such models with high confidence is intrinsically difficult: it involves capturing the vendor's architectural intent, aspects of which (especially for concurrency) have not previously been precisely defined. We therefore first develop a concurrency model with a microarchitectural flavour, abstracting from many hardware implementation concerns but still close to hardware-designer intuition. This means it can be discussed in detail with ARM architects. We then develop a more abstract model, better suited for use as an architectural specification, which we prove sound w.r.t.~the first. The instruction semantics involves further difficulties, handling the mass of detail and the subtle intensional information required to interface to the concurrency model. We have a novel ISA description language, with a lightweight dependent type system, letting us do both with a rather direct representation of the ARM reference manual instruction descriptions. We build a tool from the combined semantics that lets one explore, either interactively or exhaustively, the full range of architecturally allowed behaviour, for litmus tests and (small) ELF executables. We prove correctness of some optimisations needed for tool performance. We validate the models by discussion with ARM staff, and by comparison against ARM hardware behaviour, for ISA single- instruction tests and concurrent litmus tests.

There is a joke where a physicist and a mathematician are asked to herd cats. The physicist starts with an infinitely large pen which he reduces until it is of reasonable diameter yet contains all the cats. The mathematician builds a fence around himself and declares the outside to be the inside. Defining memory models is akin to herding cats: both the physicist's or mathematician's attitudes are tempting, but neither can go without the other.

We propose an axiomatic generic framework for modelling weak memory. We show how to instantiate this framework for Sequential Consistency (SC), Total Store Order (TSO), C++ restricted to release-acquire atomics, and Power. For Power, we compare our model to a preceding operational model in which we found a flaw. To do so, we define an operational model that we show equivalent to our axiomatic model. We also propose a model for ARM. Our testing on this architecture revealed a behaviour later acknowledged as a bug by ARM, and more recently, 31 additional anomalies. We offer a new simulation tool, called herd, which allows the user to specify the model of his choice in a concise way. Given a specification of a model, the tool becomes a simulator for that model. The tool relies on an axiomatic description; this choice allows us to outperform all previous simulation tools. Additionally, we confirm that verification time is vastly improved, in the case of bounded model checking. Finally, we put our models in perspective, in the light of empirical data obtained by analysing the C and C++ code of a Debian Linux distribution. We present our new analysis tool, called mole, which explores a piece of code to find the weak memory idioms that it uses.

Shared memory concurrency relies on synchronisation primitives: compare-and-swap, load-reserve/store-conditional (aka LL/SC), language-level mutexes, and so on. In a sequentially consistent setting, or even in the TSO setting of x86 and Sparc, these have well-understood semantics. But in the very relaxed settings of IBM®, POWER®, ARM, or C/C++, it remains surprisingly unclear exactly what the programmer can depend on.

Exploiting today's multiprocessors requires high-performance and correct concurrent systems code (optimising compilers, language runtimes, OS kernels, etc.), which in turn requires a good understanding of the observable processor behaviour that can be relied on. Unfortunately this critical hardware/software interface is not at all clear for several current multiprocessors.

We propose an extension of the join calculus with pattern matching on algebraic data types. Our initial motivation is twofold: to provide an intuitive semantics of the interaction between concurrency and pattern matching; to define a practical compilation scheme from extended join definitions into ordinary ones plus ML pattern matching. To assess the correctness of our compilation scheme, we develop a theory of the applied join calculus, a calculus with value passing and value matching. We implement this calculus as an extension of the current JoCaml system.

Abstract We examine the ML pattern-matching anomalies of useless clauses and non-exhaustive matches. We state the definition of these anomalies, building upon pattern matching semantics, and propose a simple algorithm to detect them. We have integrated the algorithm in the Objective Caml compiler, but we show that the same algorithm is also usable in a non-strict language such as Haskell. Or-patterns are considered for both strict and non-strict languages.

This work presents simple decision procedures for the propositional calculus and for a simple predicate calculus. These decision procedures are based upon enumeration of the possible values of the variables in an expression. Yet, by taking advantage of the sequential semantics of boolean connectors, not all values are enumerated. In some cases, dramatic savings of machine time can be achieved. In particular, an equivalence checker for a small programming language appears to be usable in practice.

We present improvements to the backtracking technique of pattern-matching compilation. Several optimizations are introduced, such as commutation of patterns, use of exhaustiveness information, and control flow optimization through the use of labeled static exceptions and context information. These optimizations have been integrated in the Objective-Caml compiler. They have shown good results in increasing the speed of pattern-matching intensive programs, without increasing final code size.

We define a weak λ-calculus, λσ w , as a subsystem of the full λ-calculus with explicit substitutions λσ [uArr ] . We claim that λσ w could be the archetypal output language of functional compilers, just as the λ-calculus is their universal input language. Furthermore, λσ [uArr ] could be the adequate theory to establish the correctness of functional compilers. Here we illustrate these claims by proving the correctness of four simplified compilers and runtime systems modelled as abstract machines. The four machines we prove are the Krivine machine, the SECD, the FAM and the CAM. Thus, we give the first formal proofs of Cardelli's FAM and of its compiler.

Projet PARA

We introduce the new framework of Labeled