Fixed points are a recurring theme in computer science and are often constructed as limits of suitably seeded fixed point iterations. We present the algebra of iterative constructions (AIC) - a purely algebraic approach to reasoning about fixed point iterations of continuous endomaps on complete lattices. AIC allows derivations of constructive fixed point theorems via equational logic and avoids explicit computations with indices. For example, F ◇ F^* ⊥ = ◇ F^* ⊥ states in AIC that sup_n Fⁿ (⊥) - a construction known from the Kleene fixed point theorem - is a fixed point of F. We demonstrate the applicability of AIC by providing algebraic proofs of several well- and less-well-known fixed point theorems: Among others, we prove the Tarski-Kantorovich principle - a generalization of the Kleene fixed point theorem - as well as a fixed point-theoretic generalization of k-induction - a technique used in software verification. We moreover present a novel fixed point theorem. It improves a recent generalization of the Tarski-Kantorovich principle due to Olszewski for obtaining pre- and postfixed points from lattice-theoretic limit inferiors and limit superiors through iterating an endomap on an arbitrary seed element: We identify sufficient continuity conditions on the endomaps so that these limits become proper fixed points. We have mechanized our algebra in Isabelle/HOL. Isabelle’s sledgehammer tool is able to find proofs of the above fixed point theorems fully automatically. Finally, we investigate the completeness of our axiomatization of AIC. We prove that our finite set of finitary axioms is (a) sound but incomplete for standard models of AIC (sequences of elements from a complete lattice) and that (b) a different finite set of infinitary axioms is complete. We also prove that infinitary axioms are unavoidable: there exists no complete axiomatization of standard models given by finitely many finitary axioms.

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.

Abstract 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.

Timing channels are a significant and growing security threat in computer systems, with no established solution. We have recently argued that the OS must provide time protection, in analogy to the established memory protection, to protect applications from information leakage through timing channels. Based on a recently-proposed implementation of time protection in the seL4 microkernel, we investigate how such an implementation could be formally proved to prevent timing channels. We postulate that this should be possible by reasoning about a highly abstracted representation of the shared hardware resources that cause timing channels.

The main security mechanism for enforcing memory isolation in operating systems is provided by page tables. The hardware-implemented Translation Lookaside Buffer (TLB) caches these, and therefore the TLB and its consistency with memory are security crit- ical for OS kernels, including formally verified kernels such as seL4. If performance is paramount, this consistency can be subtle to achieve; yet, all major formally verified ker- nels currently leave the TLB as an assumption. In this paper, we present a formal model of the Memory Management Unit (MMU) for the ARM architecture which includes the TLB, its maintenance operations, and its derived properties. We integrate this specification into the Cambridge ARM model. We derive sufficient conditions for TLB consistency, and we abstract away the functional details of the MMU for simpler reasoning about executions in the presence of cached address translation, including complete and partial walks.

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.

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.

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.

Formal verification can provide the highest degree of software assurance. Demand for it is growing, but there are still few projects that have successfully applied it to sizeable, real-world systems. This lack of experience makes it hard to predict the size, effort and duration of verification projects. In this paper, we aim to better understand possible leading indicators of proof size. We present an empirical analysis of proofs from the landmark formal verification of the seL4 microkernel and the two largest software verification proof developments in the Archive of Formal Proofs. Together, these comprise 15,018 individual lemmas and approximately 215,000 lines of proof script. We find a consistent quadratic relationship between the size of the formal statement of a property, and the final size of its formal proof in the interactive theorem prover Isabelle. Combined with our prior work, which has indicated that there is a strong linear relationship between proof effort and proof size, these results pave the way for effort estimation models to support the management of large-scale formal verification projects.

Context: Recent projects such as L4.verified (the verification of the seL4 microkernel) have demonstrated that large-scale formal program verification is now becoming practical.

We present an approach for automatically generating provably correct abstractions from C source code that are useful for practical implementation verification. The abstractions are easier for a human verification engineer to reason about than the implementation and increase the productivity of interactive code proof. We guarantee soundness by automatically generating proofs that the abstractions are correct.

Abstract It is a great verification challenge to prove properties of complete computer systems on the source code level. The L4.verified project achieved a major step towards this goal by mechanising a proof of functional correctness of the seL4 kernel. They expressed correctness in terms of data refinement with a coarse-grained specification of the kernel’s execution environment. In this paper, we strengthen the original correctness theorem in two ways. First, we convert the previous abstraction relations into projection functions from concrete to abstract states. Second, we revisit the specification of the kernel’s execution environment: we introduce the notion of virtual memory based on the kernel data structures, we distinguish individual user programs that run on top of the kernel and we restrict the memory access of each of these programs to its virtual memory. Through our work, properties like the separation of user programs gain meaning. This paves the way for proving security properties like non-interference of user programs. Furthermore, our extension of L4.verified’s proof facilitates the verification of properties about complete software systems based on the seL4 kernel. Besides the seL4-specific results, we report on our work from an engineering perspective to exemplify general challenges that similar projects are likely to encounter. Moreover, we point out the advantages of using projection functions in L4.verified’s verification approach and for stepwise refinement in general.

We present an in-depth coverage of the comprehensive machine-checked formal verification of seL4, a general-purpose operating system microkernel. We discuss the kernel design we used to make its verification tractable. We then describe the functional correctness proof of the kernel's C implementation and we cover further steps that transform this result into a comprehensive formal verification of the kernel: a formally verified IPC fastpath, a proof that the binary code of the kernel correctly implements the C semantics, a proof of correct access-control enforcement, a proof of information-flow noninterference, a sound worst-case execution time analysis of the binary, and an automatic initialiser for user-level systems that connects kernel-level access-control enforcement with reasoning about system behaviour. We summarise these results and show how they integrate to form a coherent overall analysis, backed by machine-checked, end-to-end theorems. The seL4 microkernel is currently not just the only general-purpose operating system kernel that is fully formally verified to this degree. It is also the only example of formal proof of this scale that is kept current as the requirements, design and implementation of the system evolve over almost a decade. We report on our experience in maintaining this evolving formally verified code base.

Size and effort estimation is a significant challenge for the management of large-scale formal verification projects. We report on an initial study of relationships between the sizes of artefacts from the development of seL4, a formally-verified embedded systems microkernel. For each API function we first determined its COSMIC Function Point (CFP) count (based on the seL4 user manual), then sliced the formal specifications and source code, and performed a normalised line count on these artefact slices. We found strong and significant relationships between the sizes of the artefact slices, but no significant relationships between them and the CFP counts. Our finding that CFP is poorly correlated with lines of code is based on just one system, but is largely consistent with prior literature. We find CFP is also poorly correlated with the size of formal specifications. Nonetheless, lines of formal specification correlate with lines of source code, and this may provide a basis for size prediction in future formal verification projects. In future work we will investigate proof sizing.

We extend the existing formal verification of the seL4 operating system microkernel from 9500 lines of C source code to the binary level. We handle all functions that were part of the previous verification. Like the original verification, we currently omit the assembly routines and volatile accesses used to control system hardware.

This paper describes ongoing work on a new technique for reducing the cost of assurance of large software systems by building on a verified component platform. From a component architecture description, we automatically derive a formal model of the system and a semantics for the runtime behaviour of generated inter-component communication code. We can prove wellformedness properties of the architecture automatically and provide a framework in which users can reason about their component code and its behaviour. By leveraging the isolation properties and communication guarantees of a formally verified platform, correctness arguments for critical components will be able to be derived independently and composed together to reason about system-level correctness.

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.

In contrast to testing, mathematical reasoning and formal verification can show the absence of whole classes of security vulnerabilities. We present the, to our knowledge, first complete, formal, machine-checked verification of information flow security for the implementation of a general-purpose microkernel; namely seL4. Unlike previous proofs of information flow security for operating system kernels, ours applies to the actual 8, 830 lines of C code that implement seL4, and so rules out the possibility of invalidation by implementation errors in this code. We assume correctness of compiler, assembly code, hardware, and boot code. We prove everything else. This proof is strong evidence of seL4's utility as a separation kernel, and describes precisely how the general purpose kernel should be configured to enforce isolation and mandatory information flow control. We describe the information flow security statement we proved (a variant of intransitive noninterference), including the assumptions on which it rests, as well as the modifications that had to be made to seL4 to ensure it was enforced. We discuss the practical limitations and implications of this result, including covert channels not covered by the formal proof.

The L4.verified project was a rare success in large-scale, formal verification: it provided a formal, machine-checked, code-level proof of the full functional correctness of the seL4 microkernel. In this paper we report on the development process and management issues of this project, highlighting key success factors. We formulate a detailed descriptive model of its middle-out development process, and analyze the evolution and dependencies of code and proof artifacts. We compare our key findings on verification and re-verification with insights from other verification efforts in the literature. Our analysis of the project is based on complete access to project logs, meeting notes, and version control data over its entire history, including its long-term, ongoing maintenance phase. The aim of this work is to aid understanding of how to successfully run large-scale formal software verification projects.

The L4.verified project successfully completed a large-scale machine-checked formal verification at the code level of the functional correctness of the seL4 operating system microkernel. The project applied a middle-out process, which is significantly different from conventional software development processes. This paper reports a simulation model of this process; it is the first simulation model of a formal verification process. The model aims to support further understanding and investigation of the dynamic characteristics of the process and to support planning and optimization of future process enactment. We based the simulation model on a descriptive process model and information from project logs, meeting notes, and version control data over the project's history. Simulation results from the initial version of the model show the impact of complex coupling among the activities and artifacts, and frequent parallel as well as iterative work during execution. We examine some possible improvements on the formal verification process in light of the simulation results.

We report on our experience using Haskell as an executable specification language in the formal verification of the seL4 microkernel. The verification connects an abstract operational specification in the theorem prover Isabelle/HOL to a C implementation of the microkernel. We describe how this project differs from other efforts, and examine the effect of using Haskell in a large-scale formal verification. The kernel comprises 8,700 lines of C code; the verification more than 150,000 lines of proof script.

Complete formal verification is the only known way to guarantee that a system is free of programming errors.We present our experience in performing the formal, machine-checked verification of the seL4 microkernel from an abstract specification down to its C implementation. We assume correctness of compiler, assembly code, and hardware, and we used a unique design approach that fuses formal and operating systems techniques. To our knowledge, this is the first formal proof of functional correctness of a complete, general-purpose operating-system kernel. Functional correctness means here that the implementation always strictly follows our high-level abstract specification of kernel behaviour. This encompasses traditional design and implementation safety properties such as the kernel will never crash, and it will never perform an unsafe operation. It also proves much more: we can predict precisely how the kernel will behave in every possible situation.seL4, a third-generation microkernel of L4 provenance, comprises 8,700 lines of C code and 600 lines of assembler. Its performance is comparable to other high-performance L4 kernels.

We present a formal model of memory that both captures the low-level features of C's pointers and memory, and that forms the basis for an expressive implementation of separation logic. At the low level, we do not commit common oversimplifications, but correctly deal with C's model of programming language values and the heap. At the level of separation logic, we are still able to reason abstractly and efficiently. We implement this framework in the theorem prover Isabelle/HOL and demonstrate it on two case studies. We show that the divide between detailed and abstract does not impose undue verification overhead, and that simple programs remain easy to verify. We also show that the framework is applicable to real, security- and safety-critical code by formally verifying the memory allocator of the L4 microkernel.

We propose a development methodology for designing and prototyping high assurance microkernels, and describe our application of it. The methodology is based on rapid prototyping and iterative refinement of the microkernel in a functional programming language. The prototype provides a precise semi-formal model, which is also combined with a machine simulator to form a reference implementation capable of executing real user-level software, to obtain accurate feedback on the suitability of the kernel API during development phases. We extract from the prototype a machine-checkable formal specification in higher-order logic, which may be used to verify properties of the design, and also results in corrections to the design without the need for full verification. We found the approach leads to productive, highly iterative development where formal modelling, semi-formal design and prototyping, and end use all contribute to a more mature final design in a shorter period of time.

We introduce Jinja, a Java-like programming language with a formal semantics designed to exhibit core features of the Java language architecture. Jinja is a compromise between the realism of the language and the tractability and clarity of its formal semantics. The following aspects are formalised: a big and a small step operational semantics for Jinja and a proof of their equivalence, a type system and a definite initialisation analysis, a type safety proof of the small step semantics, a virtual machine (JVM), its operational semantics and its type system, a type safety proof for the JVM; a bytecode verifier, that is, a data flow analyser for the JVM, a correctness proof of the bytecode verifier with respect to the type system, and a compiler and a proof that it preserves semantics and well-typedness. The emphasis of this work is not on particular language features but on providing a unified model of the source language, the virtual machine, and the compiler. The whole development has been carried out in the theorem prover Isabelle/HOL.

Abstract Eva and Kristoffer Rose proposed a (sparse) annotation of Java Virtual Machine code with types to enable a one‐pass verification of well‐typedness. We have formalized a variant of their proposal in the theorem prover Isabelle/HOL and proved soundness and completeness. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.