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

Harvey Tuch

dblp:53/6157 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
5as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 2 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 first-authorTheory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author

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
Program verification · 65% Operating systems · 20% Programming languages and type systems · 15%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification › system verification
kernel verification
0.112009
seL4: formal verification of an OS kernel · SOSP 2009
Operating systems › kernel › kernel design
microkernel
0.112009
seL4: formal verification of an OS kernel · SOSP 2009
Programming languages and type systems › language semantics › memory model semantics
c memory model
0.112007
Types, bytes, and separation logic · POPL 2007
Program verification › proof assistants
Isabelle/HOL
0.112007
Types, bytes, and separation logic · POPL 2007
Program verification
proof assistants
0.112007
Types, bytes, and separation logic · POPL 2007
Program verification › program logic
separation logic
0.112007
Types, bytes, and separation logic · POPL 2007

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

machine-checked proof · 0.1functional correctness · 0.1separation logic · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2012 Block storage virtualization with commodity secure digital cards
abstract
Smartphones, tablets and other mobile platforms typically accommodate bulk data storage with low-cost, FAT-formatted Secure Digital cards. When one uses a mobile device to run a full-system virtual machine (VM), there can be a mismatch between 1) the VM's I/O mixture, security and reliability requirements and 2) the properties of the storage media available for VM block storage and checkpoint images. To resolve this mismatch, this paper presents a new VM disk image format called the Logging Block Store (LBS). After motivating the need for a new format, LBS is described in detail with experimental results demonstrating its efficacy. As a result of this work, recommendations are made for future optimizations throughout the stack that may simplify and improve the performance of storage virtualization systems on mobile platforms.
Harvey Tuch, Cyprien Laplace, Kenneth C. Barr
VEE1
2009 seL4: formal verification of an OS kernel
abstract
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.
Gerwin Klein, Kevin Elphinstone, Gernot Heiser, June Andronick, David A. Cock, Philip Derrin, Dhammika Elkaduwe, Kai Engelhardt, Rafal Kolanski, Michael Norrish, Thomas Sewell, Harvey Tuch, Simon Winwood
SOSP12
2009 Formal Verification of C Systems Code
Harvey Tuch
J. Autom. Reason.1
2007 Types, bytes, and separation logic
abstract
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.
Harvey Tuch, Gerwin Klein, Michael Norrish
POPL1
2005 OS Verification - Now!
Harvey Tuch, Gerwin Klein, Gernot Heiser
HotOS1
2005 A Unified Memory Model for Pointers
Harvey Tuch, Gerwin Klein
LPAR1