We introduce Cryptis , an extension of the Iris separation logic for the symbolic model of cryptography. The combination of separation logic and cryptographic reasoning allows us to prove the correctness of a protocol and later reuse this result to verify larger systems that rely on the protocol. To make this integration possible, we propose novel specifications for authentication protocols that allow agents in a network to agree on the use of system resources. We evaluate our approach by verifying various authentication protocols and a key-value store server that uses these authentication protocols to connect to clients. Our results are formalized in Rocq.

Linear type systems are powerful because they can statically ensure the correct management of resources like memory, but they can also be cumbersome to work with, since even benign uses of a resource require that it be explicitly threaded through during computation. Borrowing , as popularized by Rust, reduces this burden by allowing one to temporarily disable certain resource permissions (e.g., deallocation or mutation) in exchange for enabling certain structural permissions (e.g., weakening or contraction). In particular, this mechanism spares the borrower of a resource from having to explicitly return it to the lender but nevertheless ensures that the lender eventually reclaims ownership of the resource. In this paper, we elucidate the semantics of borrowing by starting with a standard linear type system for ensuring safe manual memory management in an untyped lambda calculus and gradually augmenting it with immutable borrows, lexical lifetimes, reborrowing, and finally mutable borrows. We prove semantic type soundness for our Borrow Calculus ( BoCa ) using Borrow Logic ( BoLo ), a novel domain-specific separation logic for borrowing. We establish the soundness of this logic using a semantic model that additionally guarantees that our calculus is terminating and free of memory leaks. We also show that our Borrow Logic is robust enough to establish the semantic safety of some syntactically ill-typed programs that temporarily break but reestablish invariants.

Currently, there is a gap between the tools used by probability theorists and those used in formal reasoning about probabilistic programs. On the one hand, a probability theorist decomposes probabilistic state along the simple and natural product of probability spaces. On the other hand, recently developed probabilistic separation logics decompose state via relatively unfamiliar measure-theoretic constructions for computing unions of sigma-algebras and probability measures. We bridge the gap between these two perspectives by showing that these two methods of decomposition are equivalent up to a suitable equivalence of categories. Our main result is a probabilistic analog of the classic equivalence between the category of nominal sets and the Schanuel topos. Through this equivalence, we validate design decisions in prior work on probabilistic separation logic and create new connections to nominal-setlike models of probability.

Safe, shared-memory interoperability between languageswith different type systems and memory-safety guarantees is an intricate problem as crossing language boundaries may result in memory-safety violations. In this paper, we present RichWasm, a novel richly typed intermediate language designed to serve as a compilation target for typed high-level languages with different memory-safety guarantees. RichWasm is based on WebAssemblyand enables safe shared-memory interoperability by incorporating a variety of type features that support fine-grained memory ownership and sharing. RichWasm is rich enough to serve as a typed compilation target for both typed garbage-collected languages and languages with an ownership-based type system and manually managed memory. We demonstrate this by providing compilers from core ML and L 3 , a type-safe language with strong updates, to RichWasm. RichWasm is compiled to regular Wasm, allowing for use in existing environments. We formalize RichWasm in Coq and prove type safety.

In gradual typing, different languages perform different dynamic type checks for the same program even though the languages have the same static type system. This raises the question of whether, given a gradually typed language, the combination of the translation that injects checks in well-typed terms and the dynamic semantics that determines their behavior sufficiently enforce the static type system of the language. Neither type soundness, nor complete monitoring, nor any other meta-theoretic property of gradually typed languages to date provides a satisfying answer. In response, we present vigilance, a semantic analytical instrument that defines when the check-injecting translation and dynamic semantics of a gradually typed language are adequate for its static type system. Technically, vigilance asks if a given translation-and-semantics combination enforces the complete run-time typing history of a value, which consists of all of the types associated with the value. We show that the standard combination for so-called Natural gradual typing is vigilant for the standard simple type system, but the standard combination for Transient gradual typing is not. At the same time, the standard combination for Transient is vigilant for a tag type system but the standard combination for Natural is not. Hence, we clarify the comparative type-level reasoning power between the two most studied approaches to sound gradual typing. Furthermore, as an exercise that demonstrates how vigilance can guide design, we introduce and examine a new theoretical static gradual type system, dubbed truer, that is stronger than tag typing and more faithfully reflects the type-level reasoning power that the dynamic semantics of Transient gradual typing can guarantee.

The Application Binary Interface (ABI) for a language defines the interoperability rules for its target platforms, including data layout and calling conventions, such that compliance with the rules ensures “safe” execution and perhaps certain resource usage guarantees. These rules are relied upon by compilers, libraries, and foreign- function interfaces. Unfortunately, ABIs are typically specified in prose, and while type systems for source languages have evolved, ABIs have comparatively stalled, lacking advancements in expressivity and safety. We propose a vision for richer, semantic ABIs to improve interoperability and library integration, supported by a methodology for formally specifying ABIs using realizability models. These semantic ABIs connect abstract, high-level types to unwieldy, but well-behaved, low-level code. We illustrate our approach with a case study formalizing the ABI of a functional source language in terms of a reference-counting implementation in a C-like target language. A key contribution supporting this case study is a graph-based model of separation logic that captures the ownership and accessibility of reference-counted resources using modalities inspired by hybrid logic. To highlight the flexibility of our methodology, we show how various design decisions can be interpreted into the semantic ABI. Finally, we provide the first formalization of library evolution, a distinguishing feature of Swift’s ABI.

We present Lilac, a separation logic for reasoning about probabilistic programs where separating conjunction captures probabilistic independence. Inspired by an analogy with mutable state where sampling corresponds to dynamic allocation, we show how probability spaces over a fixed, ambient sample space appear to be the natural analogue of heap fragments, and present a new combining operation on them such that probability spaces behave like heaps and measurability of random variables behaves like ownership. This combining operation forms the basis for our model of separation, and produces a logic with many pleasant properties. In particular, Lilac has a frame rule identical to the ordinary one, and naturally accommodates advanced features like continuous random variables and reasoning about quantitative properties of programs. Then we propose a new modality based on disintegration theory for reasoning about conditional probability. We show how the resulting modal logic validates examples from prior work, and give a formal verification of an intricate weighted sampling algorithm whose correctness depends crucially on conditional independence structure.

Programs are rarely implemented in a single language, and thus questions of type soundness should address not only the semantics of a single language, but how it interacts with others. Even between type-safe languages, disparate features can frustrate interoperability, as invariants from one language can easily be violated in the other. In their seminal 2007 paper, Matthews and Findler proposed a multi-language construction that augments the interoperating languages with a pair of boundaries that allow code from one language to be embedded in the other. While this technique has been widely applied, their syntactic source-level interoperability doesn’t reflect practical implementations, where the behavior of interaction is only defined after compilation to a common target, and any safety must be ensured by target invariants or inserted target-level “glue code.”

Abstract Many programmers use dependently typed languages such as Coq to machine-verify high-assurance software. However, existing compilers for these languages provide no guarantees after compiling, nor when linking after compilation. Type-preserving compilers preserve guarantees encoded in types and then use type checking to verify compiled code and ensure safe linking with external code. Unfortunately, standard compiler passes do not preserve the dependent typing of commonly used (intensional) type theories. This is because assumptions valid in simpler type systems no longer hold, and intensional dependent type systems are highly sensitive to syntactic changes, including compilation. We develop an A-normal form (ANF) translation with join-point optimization—a standard translation for making control flow explicit in functional languages—from the Extended Calculus of Constructions (ECC) with dependent elimination of booleans and natural numbers (a representative subset of Coq). Our dependently typed target language has equality reflection, allowing the type system to encode semantic equality of terms. This is key to proving type preservation and correctness of separate compilation for this translation. This is the first ANF translation for dependent types. Unlike related translations, it supports the universe hierarchy, and does not rely on parametricity or impredicativity.

Abstract Gradually typed languages are designed to support both dynamically typed and statically typed programming styles while preserving the benefits of each. Sound gradually typed languages dynamically check types at runtime at the boundary between statically typed and dynamically typed modules. However, there is much disagreement in the gradual typing literature over how to enforce complex types such as tuples, lists, functions and objects. In this paper, we propose a new perspective on the design of runtime gradual type enforcement: runtime type casts exist precisely to ensure the correctness of certain type-based refactorings and optimizations. For instance, for simple types, a language designer might desire that beta-eta equality is valid. We show that this perspective is useful by demonstrating that a cast semantics can be derived from beta-eta equality. We do this by providing an axiomatic account program equivalence in a gradual cast calculus in a logic we call gradual type theory (GTT). Based on Levy’s call-by-push-value, GTT allows us to axiomatize both call-by-value and call-by-name gradual languages. We then show that we can derive the behavior of casts for simple types from the corresponding eta equality principle and the assumption that the language satisfies a property called graduality , also known as the dynamic gradual guarantee. Since we can derive the semantics from the assumption of eta equality, we also receive a useful contrapositive: any observably different cast semantics that satisfies graduality must violate the eta equality. We show the consistency and applicability of our axiomatic theory by proving that a contract-based implementation using the lazy cast semantics gives a logical relations model of our type theory, where equivalence in GTT implies contextual equivalence of the programs. Since GTT also axiomatizes the dynamic gradual guarantee, our model also establishes this central theorem of gradual typing. The model is parameterized by the implementation of the dynamic types, and so gives a family of implementations that validate type-based optimization and the gradual guarantee.

Parametric polymorphism and gradual typing have proven to be a difficult combination, with no language yet produced that satisfies the fundamental theorems of each: parametricity and graduality. Notably, Toro, Labrada, and Tanter (POPL 2019) conjecture that for any gradual extension of System F that uses dynamic type generation, graduality and parametricity are ``simply incompatible''. However, we argue that it is not graduality and parametricity that are incompatible per se, but instead that combining the syntax of System F with dynamic type generation as in previous work necessitates type-directed computation, which we show has been a common source of graduality and parametricity violations in previous work. We then show that by modifying the syntax of universal and existential types to make the type name generation explicit, we remove the need for type-directed computation, and get a language that satisfies both graduality and parametricity theorems. The language has a simple runtime semantics, which can be explained by translation to a statically typed language where the dynamic type is interpreted as a dynamically extensible sum type. Far from being in conflict, we show that the parametricity theorem follows as a direct corollary of a relational interpretation of the graduality property.

No abstract available.

Compositional compiler verification aims to ensure correct compilation of components, not just whole programs. Perconti and Ahmed [2014] propose a methodology for compositional compiler correctness that supports linking with code of arbitrary provenance. In particular, they allow compiled components to be linked with code whose functionality cannot even be expressed in the compiler's own source language. The essence of their approach is to define a multi-language system that formalizes interoperability between the source and target languages so that compiler correctness can be stated as contextual equivalence in the multi-language. They illustrate this methodology on a two-pass type-preserving compiler for a polymorphic language with recursive types.

Compiler correctness is an old problem, with results stretching back beyond the last half-century. Founding the field, John McCarthy and James Painter set out to build a "completely trustworthy compiler". And yet, until quite recently, even despite truly impressive verification efforts, the theorems being proved were only about the compilation of whole programs, a theoretically quite appealing but practically unrealistic simplification. For a compiler correctness theorem to assure complete trust, the theorem must reflect the reality of how the compiler will be used. There has been much recent work on more realistic "compositional" compiler correctness aimed at proving correct compilation of components while supporting linking with components compiled from different languages using different compilers. However, the variety of theorems, stated in remarkably different ways, raises questions about what researchers even mean by a "compiler is correct." In this pearl, we develop a new framework with which to understand compiler correctness theorems in the presence of linking, and apply it to understanding and comparing this diversity of results. In doing so, not only are we better able to assess their relative strengths and weaknesses, but gain insight into what we as a community should expect from compiler correctness theorems of the future.

Gradually typed languages are designed to support both dynamically typed and statically typed programming styles while preserving the benefits of each. While existing gradual type soundness theorems for these languages aim to show that type-based reasoning is preserved when moving from the fully static setting to a gradual one, these theorems do not imply that correctness of type-based refactorings and optimizations is preserved. Establishing correctness of program transformations is technically difficult, because it requires reasoning about program equivalence, and is often neglected in the metatheory of gradual languages. In this paper, we propose an axiomatic account of program equivalence in a gradual cast calculus, which we formalize in a logic we call gradual type theory (GTT). Based on Levy’s call-by-push-value, GTT gives an axiomatic account of both call-by-value and call-by-name gradual languages. Based on our axiomatic account we prove many theorems that justify optimizations and refactorings in gradually typed languages. For example, uniqueness principles for gradual type connectives show that if the βη laws hold for a connective, then casts between that connective must be equivalent to the so-called “lazy” cast semantics. Contrapositively, this shows that “eager” cast semantics violates the extensionality of function types. As another example, we show that gradual upcasts are pure functions and, dually, gradual downcasts are strict functions. We show the consistency and applicability of our axiomatic theory by proving that a contract-based implementation using the lazy cast semantics gives a logical relations model of our type theory, where equivalence in GTT implies contextual equivalence of the programs. Since GTT also axiomatizes the dynamic gradual guarantee, our model also establishes this central theorem of gradual typing. The model is parametrized by the implementation of the dynamic types, and so gives a family of implementations that validate type-based optimization and the gradual guarantee.

Instead of a monolithic programming language trying to cover all features of interest, some programming systems are designed by combining together simpler languages that cooperate to cover the same feature space. This can improve usability by making each part simpler than the whole, but there is a risk of abstraction leaks from one language to another that would break expectations of the users familiar with only one or some of the involved languages. We propose a formal specification for what it means for a given language in a multi-language system to be usable without leaks: it should embed into the multi-language in a fully abstract way, that is, its contextual equivalence should be unchanged in the larger system. To demonstrate our proposed design principle and formal specification criterion, we design a multi-language programming system that combines an ML-like statically typed functional language and another language with linear types and linear state. Our goal is to cover a good part of the expressiveness of languages that mix functional programming and linear state (ownership), at only a fraction of the complexity. We prove that the embedding of ML into the multi-language system is fully abstract: functional programmers should not fear abstraction leaks. We show examples of combined programs demonstrating in-place memory updates and safe resource handling, and an implementation extending OCaml with our linear language. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Dependently typed languages such as Coq are used to specify and verify the full functional correctness of source programs. Type-preserving compilation can be used to preserve these specifications and proofs of correctness through compilation into the generated target-language programs. Unfortunately, type-preserving compilation of dependent types is hard. In essence, the problem is that dependent type systems are designed around high-level compositional abstractions to decide type checking, but compilation interferes with the type-system rules for reasoning about run-time terms.

Dependently typed languages such as Coq are used to specify and prove functional correctness of source programs, but what we ultimately need are guarantees about correctness of compiled code. By preserving dependent types through each compiler pass, we could preserve source-level specifications and correctness proofs into the generated target-language programs. Unfortunately, type-preserving compilation of dependent types is hard. In 2002, Barthe and Uustalu showed that type-preserving CPS is not possible for languages such as Coq. Specifically, they showed that for strong dependent pairs (Σ types), the standard typed call-by-name CPS is not type preserving . They further proved that for dependent case analysis on sums, a class of typed CPS translations—including the standard translation—is not possible . In 2016, Morrisett noticed a similar problem with the standard call-by-value CPS translation for dependent functions (Π types). In essence, the problem is that the standard typed CPS translation by double-negation, in which computations are assigned types of the form ( A → ⊥) → ⊥, disrupts the term/type equivalence that is used during type checking in a dependently typed language. In this paper, we prove that type-preserving CPS translation for dependently typed languages is not not possible. We develop both call-by-name and call-by-value CPS translations from the Calculus of Constructions with both Π and Σ types (CC) to a dependently typed target language, and prove type preservation and compiler correctness of each translation. Our target language is CC extended with an additional equivalence rule and an additional typing rule, which we prove consistent by giving a model in the extensional Calculus of Constructions. Our key observation is that we can use a CPS translation that employs answer-type polymorphism , where CPS-translated computations have type ∀ α. ( A → α) → α. This type justifies, by a free theorem , the new equality rule in our target language and allows us to recover the term/type equivalences that CPS translation disrupts. Finally, we conjecture that our translation extends to dependent case analysis on sums, despite the impossibility result, and provide a proof sketch.

High-performance dynamic language implementations make heavy use of speculative optimizations to achieve speeds close to statically compiled languages. These optimizations are typically performed by a just-in-time compiler that generates code under a set of assumptions about the state of the program and its environment. In certain cases, a program may execute code compiled under assumptions that are no longer valid. The implementation must then deoptimize the program on-the-fly; this entails finding semantically equivalent code that does not rely on invalid assumptions, translating program state to that expected by the target code, and transferring control. This paper looks at the interaction between optimization and deoptimization, and shows that reasoning about speculation is surprisingly easy when assumptions are made explicit in the program representation. This insight is demonstrated on a compiler intermediate representation, named sourir, modeled after the high-level representation for a dynamic language. Traditional compiler optimizations such as constant folding, unreachable code elimination, and function inlining are shown to be correct in the presence of assumptions. Furthermore, the paper establishes the correctness of compiler transformations specific to deoptimization: namely unrestricted deoptimization, predicate hoisting, and assume composition.

Gradually typed languages allow statically typed and dynamically typed code to interact while maintaining benefits of both styles. The key to reasoning about these mixed programs is Siek-Vitousek-Cimini-Boyland’s (dynamic) gradual guarantee, which says that giving components of a program more precise types only adds runtime type checking, and does not otherwise change behavior. In this paper, we give a semantic reformulation of the gradual guarantee called graduality . We change the name to promote the analogy that graduality is to gradual typing what parametricity is to polymorphism. Each gives a local-to-global, syntactic-to-semantic reasoning principle that is formulated in terms of a kind of observational approximation. Utilizing the analogy, we develop a novel logical relation for proving graduality. We show that embedding-projection pairs (ep pairs) are to graduality what relations are to parametricity. We argue that casts between two types where one is “more dynamic” (less precise) than the other necessarily form an ep pair, and we use this to cleanly prove the graduality cases for casts from the ep-pair property. To construct ep pairs, we give an analysis of the type dynamism relation—also known as type precision or naïve subtyping—that interprets the rules for type dynamism as compositional constructions on ep pairs, analogous to the coercion interpretation of subtyping.

We present FunTAL, the first multi-language system to formalize safe interoperability between a high-level functional language and low-level assembly code while supporting compositional reasoning about the mix. A central challenge in developing such a multi-language is bridging the gap between assembly, which is staged into jumps to continuations, and high-level code, where subterms return a result. We present a compositional stack-based typed assembly language that supports components, comprised of one or more basic blocks, that may be embedded in high-level contexts. We also present a logical relation for FunTAL that supports reasoning about equivalence of high-level components and their assembly replacements, mixed-language programs with callbacks between languages, and assembly components comprised of different numbers of basic blocks.

The polymorphic blame calculus integrates static typing, including universal types, with dynamic typing. The primary challenge with this integration is preserving parametricity: even dynamically-typed code should satisfy it once it has been cast to a universal type. Ahmed et al. (2011) employ runtime type generation in the polymorphic blame calculus to preserve parametricity, but a proof that it does so has been elusive. Matthews and Ahmed (2008) gave a proof of parametricity for a closely related system that combines ML and Scheme, but later found a flaw in their proof. In this paper we present an improved version of the polymorphic blame calculus and we prove that it satisfies relational parametricity. The proof relies on a step-indexed Kripke logical relation. The step-indexing is required to make the logical relation well-defined in the case for the dynamic type. The possible worlds include the mapping of generated type names to their types and the mapping of type names to relations. We prove the Fundamental Property of this logical relation and that it is sound with respect to contextual equivalence. To demonstrate the utility of parametricity in the polymorphic blame calculus, we derive two free theorems.

A fully abstract compiler guarantees that two source components are observationally equivalent in the source language if and only if their translations are observationally equivalent in the target. Full abstraction implies the translation is secure: target-language attackers can make no more observations of a compiled component than a source-language attacker interacting with the original source component. Proving full abstraction for realistic compilers is challenging because realistic target languages contain features (such as control effects) unavailable in the source, while proofs of full abstraction require showing that every target context to which a compiled component may be linked can be back-translated to a behaviorally equivalent source context.

The dependency core calculus (DCC) is a framework for studying a variety of dependency analyses (e.g., secure information flow). The key property provided by DCC is noninterference, which guarantees that a low-level observer (attacker) cannot distinguish high-level (protected) computations. The proof of noninterference for DCC suggests a connection to parametricity in System F, which suggests that it should be possible to implement dependency analyses in languages with parametric polymorphism. We present a translation from DCC into Fω and prove that the translation preserves noninterference. To express noninterference in Fω, we define a notion of observer-sensitive equivalence that makes essential use of both first-order and higher-order polymorphism. Our translation provides insights into DCC's type system and shows how DCC can be implemented in a polymorphic language without loss of the noninterference (security) guarantees available in DCC. Our contributions include proof techniques that should be valuable when proving other secure compilation or full abstraction results.

Provenance for database queries or scientific workflows is often motivated as providing explanation, increasing understanding of the underlying data sources and processes used to compute the query, and reproducibility, the capability to recompute the results on different inputs, possibly specialized to a part of the output. Many provenance systems claim to provide such capabilities; however, most lack formal definitions or guarantees of these properties, while others provide formal guarantees only for relatively limited classes of changes. Building on recent work on provenance traces and slicing for functional programming languages, we introduce a detailed tracing model of provenance for multiset-valued Nested Relational Calculus, define trace slicing algorithms that extract subtraces needed to explain or recompute specific parts of the output, and define query slicing and differencing techniques that support explanation. We state and prove correctness properties for these techniques and present a proof-of-concept implementation in Haskell.

Fine-grained concurrent data structures (or FCDs) reduce the granularity of critical sections in both time and space, thus making it possible for clients to access different parts of a mutable data structure in parallel. However, the tradeoff is that the implementations of FCDs are very subtle and tricky to reason about directly. Consequently, they are carefully designed to be contextual refinements of their coarse-grained counterparts, meaning that their clients can reason about them as if all access to them were sequentialized.

Provenance is an increasing concern due to the ongoing revolution in sharing and processing scientific data on the Web and in other computer systems. It is proposed that many computer systems will need to become provenance-aware in order to provide satisfactory accountability, reproducibility, and trust for scientific or other high-value data. To date, there is not a consensus concerning appropriate formal models or security properties for provenance. In previous work, we introduced a formal framework for provenance security and proposed formal definitions of properties called disclosure and obfuscation. In this article, we study refined notions of positive and negative disclosure and obfuscation in a concrete setting, that of a general-purpose programing language. Previous models of provenance have focused on special-purpose languages such as workflows and database queries. We consider a higher-order, functional language with sums, products, and recursive types and functions, and equip it with a tracing semantics in which traces themselves can be replayed as computations. We present an annotation-propagation framework that supports many provenance views over traces, including standard forms of provenance studied previously. We investigate some relationships among provenance views and develop some partial solutions to the disclosure and obfuscation problems, including correct algorithms for disclosure and positive obfuscation based on trace slicing.

Language-based security relies on the assumption that all potential attacks follow the rules of the language in question. When programs are compiled into a different language, this is true only if the translation process preserves observational equivalence.

Several programming languages are beginning to integrate static and dynamic typing, including Racket (formerly PLT Scheme), Perl 6, and C# 4.0 and the research languages Sage (Gronski, Knowles, Tomb, Freund, and Flanagan, 2006) and Thorn (Wrigstad, Eugster, Field, Nystrom, and Vitek, 2009). However, an important open question remains, which is how to add parametric polymorphism to languages that combine static and dynamic typing. We present a system that permits a value of dynamic type to be cast to a polymorphic type and vice versa, with relational parametricity enforced by a kind of dynamic sealing along the lines proposed by Matthews and Ahmed (2008) and Neis, Dreyer, and Rossberg (2009). Our system includes a notion of blame, which allows us to show that when casting between a more-precise type and a less-precise type, any cast failures are due to the less-precisely-typed portion of the program. We also show that a cast from a subtype to its supertype cannot fail.

Provenance is information recording the source, derivation or history of some information. Provenance tracking has been studied in a variety of settings, particularly database management systems. However, although many candidate definitions of provenance have been proposed, the mathematical or semantic foundations of data provenance have received comparatively little attention. In this paper, we argue that dependency analysis techniques familiar from program analysis and program slicing provide a formal foundation for forms of provenance that are intended to show how (part of) the output of a query depends on (parts of) its input. We introduce a semantic characterisation of such dependency provenance for a core database query language, show that minimal dependency provenance is not computable, and provide dynamic and static approximation techniques. We also discuss preliminary implementation experience with using dependency provenance to compute data slices, or summaries of the parts of the input relevant to a given part of the output.

Typed Assembly Languages (TALs) are used to validate the safety of machine-language programs. The Foundational Proof-Carrying Code project seeks to verify the soundness of TALs using the smallest possible set of axioms: the axioms of a suitably expressive logic plus a specification of machine semantics. This article proposes general semantic foundations that permit modular proofs of the soundness of TALs. These semantic foundations include Typed Machine Language (TML), a type theory for specifying properties of low-level data with powerful and orthogonal type constructors, and L c , a compositional logic for specifying properties of machine instructions with simplified reasoning about unstructured control flow. Both of these components, whose semantics we specify using higher-order logic, are useful for proving the soundness of TALs. We demonstrate this by using TML and L c to verify the soundness of a low-level, typed assembly language, LTAL, which is the target of our core-ML-to-sparc compiler. To prove the soundness of the TML type system we have successfully applied a new approach, that of step-indexed logical relations . This approach provides the first semantic model for a type system with updatable references to values of impredicative quantified types. Both impredicative polymorphism and mutable references are essential when representing function closures in compilers with typed closure conversion, or when compiling objects to simpler typed primitives.

We show how to reason about "step-indexed" logical relations in an abstract way, avoiding the tedious, error-prone, and proof-obscuring step-index arithmetic that seems superficially to be an essential element of the method. Specifically, we define a logic LSLR, which is inspired by Plotkin and Abadi's logic for parametricity, but also supports recursively defined relations by means of the modal "later" operator from Appel et al.'s "very modal model" paper. We encode in LSLR a logical relation for reasoning (in-)equationally about programs in call-by-value system F extended with recursive types. Using this logical relation, we derive a useful set of rules with which we can prove contextual (in-)equivalences without mentioning step indices.

Mitchell's notion of representation independence is a particularly useful application of Reynolds' relational parametricity -- two different implementations of an abstract data type can be shown contextually equivalent so long as there exists a relation between their type representations that is preserved by their operations. There have been a number of methods proposed for proving representation independence in various pure extensions of System F (where data abstraction is achieved through existential typing), as well as in Algol- or Java-like languages (where data abstraction is achieved through the use of local mutable state). However, none of these approaches addresses the interaction of existential type abstraction and local state. In particular, none allows one to prove representation independence results for generative ADTs -- i.e. ADTs that both maintain some local state and define abstract types whose internal representations are dependent on that local state.

Language-based security relies on the assumption that all potential attacks are bound by the rules of the language in question. When programs are compiled into a different language, this is true only if the translation process preserves observational equivalence.

Self-adjusting computation enables writing programs that can automatically and efficiently respond to changes to their data (e.g., inputs). The idea behind the approach is to store all data that can change over time in modifiable references and to let computations construct traces that can drive change propagation. After changes have occurred, change propagation updates the result of the computation by re-evaluating only those expressions that depend on the changed data. Previous approaches to self-adjusting computation require that modifiable references be written at most once during execution---this makes the model applicable only in a purely functional setting.

The concept of a “unique” object arises in many emerging programming languages such as Clean, CQual, Cyclone, TAL, and Vault. In each of these systems, unique objects make it possible to perform operations that would otherwise be prohibited (e.g., deallocating an object) or to ensure that some obligation will be met (e.g., an opened file will be closed). However, different languages provide different interpretations of “uniqueness” and have different rules regarding how unique objects interact with the rest of the language. Our goal is to establish a common model that supports each of these languages, by allowing us to encode and study the interactions of the different forms of uniqueness. The model we provide is based on a substructural variant of the polymorphic λ-calculus, augmented with four kinds of mutable references: unrestricted, relevant, affine, and linear. The language has a natural operational semantics that supports deallocation of references, strong (type-varying) updates, and storage of unique objects in shared references. We establish the strong soundness of the type system by constructing a novel, semantic interpretation of the types. This technical report is really two documents in one: The first part is a paper appearing in the Tenth ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP’05). The second part is a formal development of the language, step-indexed model, and soundness proof referenced in the first part. If you have already read a version of “A Step-Indexed Model of Substructural State”, then you should proceed directly to the appendices.

In this paper, we develop a new substructural logic that can encode invariants necessary for reasoning about hierarchical storage. We show how the logic can be used to describe the layout of bits in a memory word, the layout of memory words in a region, the layout of regions in an address space, or even the layout of address spaces in a multiprocessing environment. We provide a semantics for our formulas and then apply the semantics and logic to the task of developing a type system for Mini-KAM, a simplified version of the abstract machine used in the ML Kit with regions.

We demonstrate a semantic model of general references - that is, mutable memory cells that may contain values of any (statically-checked) closed type, including other references. Our model is in terms of execution sequences on a von Neumann machine; thus, it can be used in a Proof-Carrying Code system where the skeptical consumer checks even the proofs of the typing rules. The model allows us to prove a frame-axiom introduction rule that allows locality of specification and reasoning, even in the event of updates to aliased locations. Our proof is machine-checked in the Twelf metalogic.