Article

Smallfoot: modular automatic assertion checking with separation logic

Authors:

Cristiano Calcagno,

Peter W. O'HearnAuthors Info & Claims

FMCO'05: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Formal Methods for Components and Objects

Pages 115 - 137

https://doi.org/10.1007/11804192_6

Published: 01 November 2005 Publication History

Abstract

Separation logic is a program logic for reasoning about programs that manipulate pointer data structures. We describe Smallfoot, a tool for checking certain lightweight separation logic specifications. The assertions describe the shapes of data structures rather than their detailed contents, and this allows reasoning to be fully automatic. The presentation in the paper is tutorial in style. We illustrate what the tool can do via examples which are oriented toward novel aspects of separation logic, namely: avoidance of frame axioms (which say what a procedure does not change); embracement of “dirty” features such as memory disposal and address arithmetic; information hiding in the presence of pointers; and modular reasoning about concurrent programs.

References

[1]

A. Banerjee and D.A. Naumann. Ownership confinement ensures representationindependence for object-oriented programs. Journal of the ACM, 52(6):894-960,2005. Preliminary version in POPL'02.

Digital Library

[2]

M. Barnett, R. DeLine, M. Fahndrich, K.R.M. Leino, and W. Schulte. Verificationof object-oriented programs with invariants. Journal of Object Technology, 3(6):27-56, 2004.

[3]

M. Barnett, K.R.M. Leino, and W. Schulte. The Spec# programming system: Anoverview. In CASSIS'04 post-proceedings, 2004.

Digital Library

[4]

J. Berdine, C. Calcagno, and P.W. O'Hearn. Verification condition generation andvariable conditions in Smallfoot. Available fromhttp://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/research/logic/theory/projects/smallfoot/index.html.

[5]

J. Berdine, C. Calcagno, and P.W. O'Hearn. Symbolic execution with separationlogic. In 3rd APLAS, pages 52-68, 2005.

Digital Library

[6]

L. Birkedal, N. Torp-Smith, and J.C. Reynolds. Local reasoning about a copyinggarbage collector. In 31st POPL, pages 220-231, 2004.

Digital Library

[7]

R. Bornat, C. Calcagno, and P. O'Hearn. Local reasoning, separation, and aliasing.Presented at 2nd SPACE Workshop, 2004.

[8]

R. Bornat, C. Calcagno, P. O'Hearn, and M. Parkinson. Permission accounting inseparation logic. 32nd POPL, 59-70, 2005.

Digital Library

[9]

J. Boyland. Checking interference with fractional permissions. In 10th SAS, pages55-72, 2003.

Digital Library

[10]

P. Brinch-Hansen, editor. The Origin of Concurrent Programming. Springer-Verlag, 2002.

[11]

S.D. Brookes. A semantics for concurrent separation logic. Theoretical ComputerScience, to appear. Preliminary version in CONCUR'04, 2006.

Digital Library

[12]

D. Clarke, J. Noble, and J. Potter. Simple ownership types for object containment.In 15th ECOOP, pages 53-76, 2001.

Digital Library

[13]

R. DeLine and M. Fähndrich. Enforcing high-level protocols in low-level software.In 8th PLDI, pages 59-69, 2001.

Digital Library

[14]

W. Dietl and P. Müller. Universes: Lightweight ownership for JML. Journal ofObject Technology, 2006.

[15]

C. Flanagan, S.N. Freund, and S. Qadeer. Thread-modular verification for sharedmemoryprograms. In 11th ESOP, pages 262-277, 2002.

Digital Library

[16]

C. Flanagan, K.R.M. Leino, M. Lillibridge, G. Nelson, J.B. Saxe, and R. Stata.Extended static checking for Java. In 9th PLDI, pages 234 - 245, 2002.

Digital Library

[17]

C.A.R. Hoare. Procedures and parameters: An axiomatic approach. In E. Engeler,editor, Symposium on the Semantics of Algorithmic Languages, volume 188of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 102-116. Springer-Verlag, 1971.

[18]

C.A.R. Hoare. Towards a theory of parallel programming. In Operating SystemsTechniques, Acad. Press, pages 61-71. Reprinted in {10}, 1972.

[19]

B. Jacobs, K.R.M. Leino, F. Piessens, and W. Schulte. Safe concurrency for aggregateobjects with invariants. In 3rd SEFM, 2005.

Digital Library

[20]

J. Jenson, M. Jorgensen, N. Klarkund, and M. Schwartzback. Automatic verificationof pointer programs using monadic second-order logic. In 4th PLDI, pages225-236, 1997.

Digital Library

[21]

C.B. Jones. Specification and design of (parallel) programs. IFIP Conf., 1983.

[22]

C.B. Jones. Wanted: A compositional approach to concurrency. In A. McIver andC. Morgan, editors, Programming Methodology, pages 1-15, 2003. Springer-Verlag.

Digital Library

[23]

D.E. Knuth. The Art of Computer Programming, Volume I: Fundamental Algorithms.Addison Wesley, 2nd edition, 1973.

[24]

K.R.M. Leino and P. Müller. Object invariants in dynamic contexts. In 18thECOOP, pages 491-516, 2004.

[25]

K.R.M. Leino, A. Poetzsch-Heffter, and Y. Zhou. Using data groups to specify andcheck side effects. In 9th PLDI, pages 246 - 257, 2002.

Digital Library

[26]

M.M. Michael. Hazard pointers: Safe memory reclamation for lock-free objects.IEEE TPDS, 15(6):491-504, 2004.

Digital Library

[27]

J. Misra and K.M. Chandy. Proofs of networks of processes. IEEE Trans. SoftwareEng., 7(4):417-426, 1981.

Digital Library

[28]

A. Möller and M.I. Schwartzbach. The pointer assertion logic engine. In 8th PLDI,pages 221-231, 2001.

Digital Library

[29]

D.A. Naumann. Assertion-based encapsulation, invariants and simulations. In 3rdFMCO, pages 251-273, 2005.

Digital Library

[30]

D.A. Naumann and M. Barnett. Friends need a bit more: Maintaining invariantsover shared state. In 7th MPC, pages 54-84, 2004.

[31]

P.W. O'Hearn. Resources, concurrency and local reasoning. Theoretical ComputerScience, to appear. Preliminary version in CONCUR'04, 2006.

Digital Library

[32]

P.W. O'Hearn, J.C. Reynolds, and H. Yang. Local reasoning about programs thatalter data structures. In 15th CSL. pages 1-19, 2001.

Digital Library

[33]

P.W. O'Hearn, H. Yang, and J.C. Reynolds. Separation and information hiding.In 31st POPL, pages 268-280, 2004.

Digital Library

[34]

M. Parkinson and R. Bornat. Exploiting linearisability in program logic. Draftpaper, 2005.

[35]

J.C. Reynolds. Separation logic: A logic for shared mutable data structures. In17th LICS, pages 55-74.

Digital Library

[36]

N. Rinetzky, J. Bauer, T. Reps, M. Sagiv, and R. Wilhelm. A semantics for procedurelocal heaps and its abstractions. In 32nd POPL, pages 296-309, 2005.

Digital Library

[37]

M. Sagiv, T. Reps, and R. Wilhelm. Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic.ACM TOPLAS, 24(3):217-298, 2002.

Digital Library

[38]

J. Schwarz. Generic commands--A tool for partial correctness formalisms. TheComputer Journal, 20(2):151-155, 1977.

[39]

D. Walker and J.G. Morrisett. Alias types for recursive data structures. In 3rdTypes in Compilation Workshop, pages 177-206, 2001.

Digital Library

[40]

H. Yang. An example of local reasoning in BI pointer logic: the Schorr-Waite graphmarking algorithm. Presented at 1st SPACE Workshop, 2001.

[41]

H. Yang and P.W. O'Hearn. A semantic basis for local reasoning. In 5th FOSSACS,pages 402-416, 2002.

Digital Library

Cited By

Dardinier TSammler MParthasarathy GSummers AMüller P(2025)Formal Foundations for Translational Separation Logic VerifiersProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/37048569:POPL(569-599)Online publication date: 9-Jan-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3704856
DiVincenzo JMcCormack IZimmerman CGouni HGorenburg JRamos-Dávila JZhang MSunshine JTanter ÉAldrich J(2024)Gradual C0: Symbolic Execution for Gradual VerificationACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems10.1145/370480846:4(1-57)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3704808
Murali ARivera CMadhusudan P(2024)Predictable Verification using Intrinsic DefinitionsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36564508:PLDI(1804-1829)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656450
Show More Cited By

Smallfoot: modular automatic assertion checking with separation logic

Recommendations

A Formalisation of Smallfoot in HOL
TPHOLs '09: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics

In this paper a general framework for separation logic inside the HOL theorem prover is presented. This framework is based on Abstract Separation Logic. It contains a model of an abstract, imperative programming language as well as an abstract ...
Intuitionistic Trilattice Logics

We take up a suggestion by Odintsov (2009, Studia Logica, 91, 407–428) and define intuitionistic variants of certain logics arising from the trilattice SIXTEEN₃ introduced in Shramko and Wansing (2005, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34, 121–153 and ...
Proving Isomorphism of First-Order Logic Proof Systems in HOL

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings

FMCO'05: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Formal Methods for Components and Objects

November 2005

427 pages

ISBN:3540367497

Editors:
Frank S. de Boer
Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science, CWI, Kruislaan, Amsterdam, SJ, The Netherlands
,
Marcello M. Bonsangue
Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, Leiden University, Kruislaan, Leiden, RA, The Netherlands
,
Susanne Graf
VERIMAG, Grenoble-Gières, RA, France
,
Willem-Paul de Roever
University of Kiel, Institute of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, Kiel, Germany

Sponsors

The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences: The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
NWO: Dutch Orgartisation for Scientific Research
CWI: Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica - Netherlands
IPA: Institute for Programming research and Algorithmics
LIACS: The Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2005

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

151
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 15 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Dardinier TSammler MParthasarathy GSummers AMüller P(2025)Formal Foundations for Translational Separation Logic VerifiersProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/37048569:POPL(569-599)Online publication date: 9-Jan-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3704856
DiVincenzo JMcCormack IZimmerman CGouni HGorenburg JRamos-Dávila JZhang MSunshine JTanter ÉAldrich J(2024)Gradual C0: Symbolic Execution for Gradual VerificationACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems10.1145/370480846:4(1-57)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3704808
Murali ARivera CMadhusudan P(2024)Predictable Verification using Intrinsic DefinitionsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36564508:PLDI(1804-1829)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656450
Zimmerman CDiVincenzo JAldrich J(2024)Sound Gradual Verification with Symbolic ExecutionProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36329278:POPL(2547-2576)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3632927
Eilers MSchwerhoff MMüller P(2024)Verification Algorithms for Automated Separation Logic VerifiersComputer Aided Verification10.1007/978-3-031-65627-9_18(362-386)Online publication date: 24-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-65627-9_18
Mulder ICzajka ŁKrebbers R(2023)Beyond Backtracking: Connections in Fine-Grained Concurrent Separation LogicProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/35912757:PLDI(1340-1364)Online publication date: 6-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3591275
Murali APeña LLöding CMadhusudan P(2023)A First-order Logic with FramesACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems10.1145/358305745:2(1-44)Online publication date: 15-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3583057
Peltier N(2023)Testing the Satisfiability of Formulas in Separation Logic with PermissionsAutomated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods10.1007/978-3-031-43513-3_23(427-445)Online publication date: 18-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-43513-3_23
Keuchel SHuyghebaert SLukyanov GDevriese D(2022)Verified symbolic execution with Kripke specification monads (and no meta-programming)Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/35476286:ICFP(194-224)Online publication date: 31-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3547628
Hajdu ÁMarescotti MSuzanne TMao KGrigore RGustafsson PDistefano DAronis SOzkan B(2022)InfERL: scalable and extensible Erlang static analysisProceedings of the 21st ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on Erlang10.1145/3546186.3549929(33-39)Online publication date: 6-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3546186.3549929
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten