Abstract Efforts to verify Zero-Knowledge Proof circuit encodings have highlighted the challenge of proving the correctness of quantifier-free statements that make use of both bitvector and finite field operations. Existing verification workflows are either manual or rely on SMT solvers, which scale poorly on some classes of problems for reasons that include difficulties with conversion operators and challenges reasoning about inequalities. To address these limitations, we present a novel Lean tactic that leverages range lemmas and case analysis to produce verified translations from finite fields to bitvectors. Our approach, combined with bit-blasting, outperforms state-of-the-art SMT solvers, solving 19% more ZKP arithmetization benchmarks.

Verifying imperative programs is hard. A key difficulty is that the specification of what an imperative program does is often intertwined with details about pointers and imperative state. Although there are a number of powerful separation logics that allow the details of imperative state to be captured and managed, these details are complicated and reasoning about them requires significant time and expertise. In this paper, we take a different approach: a memory-safe type system that, as part of type-checking, extracts functional specifications from imperative programs. This disentangles imperative state, which is handled by the type system, from functional specifications, which can be verified without reference to pointers. A key difficulty is that sometimes memory safety depends crucially on the functional specification of a program; e.g., an array index is only memory-safe if the index is in bounds. To handle this case, our specification extraction inserts dynamic checks into the specification. Verification then requires the additional proof that none of these checks fail. However, these checks are in a purely functional language, and so this proof also requires no reasoning about pointers.

Implementing systems in proof assistants like Coq and proving their correctness in full formal detail has consistently demonstrated promise for making extremely strong guarantees about critical software, ranging from compilers and operating systems to databases and web browsers. Unfortunately, these verifications demand such heroic manual proof effort, even for a single system, that the approach has not been widely adopted.