Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Corey Lewis

dblp:29/8396 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3Theory of computation · 2Security and privacy · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Empirical software engineering · 30% Requirements engineering and software design · 30% Program verification · 30%
Network and information security
1 paper
Systems and software security · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security › information flow control
information flow enforcement
0.212013
seL4: From General Purpose to a Proof of Information Flow Enforcement · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2013
Systems and software security
operating system security
0.212013
seL4: From General Purpose to a Proof of Information Flow Enforcement · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2013
Requirements engineering and software design
formal specification
0.212013
Formal specifications better than function points for code sizing · ICSE 2013
Program verification
mechanized verification
0.212013
seL4: From General Purpose to a Proof of Information Flow Enforcement · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2013
Empirical software engineering
software metrics
0.212013
Formal specifications better than function points for code sizing · ICSE 2013
Operating systems › kernel › kernel design
microkernel
0.012013
seL4: From General Purpose to a Proof of Information Flow Enforcement · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2013

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

intransitive noninterference proof · 0.3formal verification · 0.3line counting · 0.2function point analysis · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 Complx: a verification framework for concurrent imperative programs
abstract
We propose a concurrency reasoning framework for imperative programs, based on the Owicki-Gries (OG) foundational shared-variable concurrency method. Our framework combines the approaches of Hoare-Parallel, a formalisation of OG in Isabelle/HOL for a simple while-language, and Simpl, a generic imperative language embedded in Isabelle/HOL, allowing formal reasoning on C programs. We define the Complx language, extending the syntax and semantics of Simpl with support for parallel composition and synchronisation. We additionally define an OG logic, which we prove sound w.r.t. the semantics, and a verification condition generator, both supporting involved low-level imperative constructs such as function calls and abrupt termination. We illustrate our framework on an example that features exceptions, guards and function calls. We aim to then target concurrent operating systems, such as the interruptible eChronos embedded operating system for which we already have a model-level OG proof using Hoare-Parallel.
Sidney Amani, June Andronick, Maksym Bortin, Corey Lewis, Christine Rizkallah, Joseph Tuong
CPP4
2016 Proof of OS Scheduling Behavior in the Presence of Interrupt-Induced Concurrency
June Andronick, Corey Lewis, Daniel Matichuk, Carroll Morgan, Christine Rizkallah
ITP2
2013 Formally Verified System Initialisation
Andrew Boyton, June Andronick, Callum Bannister, Matthew Fernandez, David Greenaway, Gerwin Klein, Corey Lewis, Thomas Sewell
ICFEM8
2013 Formal specifications better than function points for code sizing
abstract
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.
Mark Staples, Rafal Kolanski, Gerwin Klein, Corey Lewis, June Andronick, Toby C. Murray, D. Ross Jeffery, Leonard J. Bass
ICSE4
2013 seL4: From General Purpose to a Proof of Information Flow Enforcement
abstract
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.
Toby C. Murray, Daniel Matichuk, Matthew Brassil, Peter Gammie, Timothy Bourke, Sean Seefried, Corey Lewis, Gerwin Klein
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy7