Article

Fictional separation logic

Authors:

Jonas Braband Jensen,

Lars BirkedalAuthors Info & Claims

ESOP'12: Proceedings of the 21st European conference on Programming Languages and Systems

Pages 377 - 396

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28869-2_19

Published: 24 March 2012 Publication History

Abstract

Separation logic formalizes the idea of local reasoning for heap-manipulating programs via the frame rule and the separating conjunction P * Q, which describes states that can be split into separate parts, with one satisfying P and the other satisfying Q. In standard separation logic, separation means physical separation. In this paper, we introduce fictional separation logic, which includes more general forms of fictional separating conjunctions P * Q, where * does not require physical separation, but may also be used in situations where the memory resources described by P and Q overlap. We demonstrate, via a range of examples, how fictional separation logic can be used to reason locally and modularly about mutable abstract data types, possibly implemented using sophisticated sharing. Fictional separation logic is defined on top of standard separation logic, and both the meta-theory and the application of the logic is much simpler than earlier related approaches.

References

[1]

Bengtson, J., Jensen, J. B., Sieczkowski, F., Birkedal, L.: Verifying Object-Oriented Programs with Higher-Order Separation Logic in Coq. In: van Eekelen, M., Geuvers, H., Schmaltz, J., Wiedijk, F. (eds.) ITP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6898, pp. 22-38. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

Digital Library

[2]

Biering, B., Birkedal, L., Torp-Smith, N.: BI-hyperdoctrines, higher-order separation logic, and abstraction. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 29(5) (2007)

Digital Library

[3]

Birkedal, L., Torp-Smith, N., Yang, H.: Semantics of separation-logic typing and higher-order frame rules for algol-like languages. Logical Methods in Computer Science 2(5:1) (August 2006)

[4]

Bornat, R., Calcagno, C., O'Hearn, P. W., Parkinson, M. J.: Permission accounting in separation logic. In: Proceedings of POPL, pp. 259-270 (2005)

Digital Library

[5]

Boyland, J.: Checking Interference with Fractional Permissions. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) SAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2694, pp. 55-72. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

Digital Library

[6]

Calcagno, C., O'Hearn, P. W., Yang, H.: Local action and abstract separation logic. In: Proceedings of LICS (2007)

Digital Library

[7]

Dinsdale-Young, T., Dodds, M., Gardner, P., Parkinson, M. J., Vafeiadis, V.: Concurrent Abstract Predicates. In: D'Hondt, T. (ed.) ECOOP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6183, pp. 504-528. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

Digital Library

[8]

Dinsdale-Young, T., Gardner, P., Wheelhouse, M.: Abstraction and Refinement for Local Reasoning. In: Leavens, G. T., O'Hearn, P., Rajamani, S. K. (eds.) VSTTE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6217, pp. 199-215. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

Digital Library

[9]

Dinsdale-Young, T., Gardner, P., Wheelhouse, M.: Abstraction and refinement for local reasoning (February 2011); journal submission

[10]

Dockins, R., Hobor, A., Appel, A. W.: A Fresh Look at Separation Algebras and Share Accounting. In: Hu, Z. (ed.) APLAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5904, pp. 161-177. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

Digital Library

[11]

Dodds, M., Jagannathan, S., Parkinson, M. J.: Modular reasoning for deterministic parallelism. In: Proceedings of POPL (2011)

Digital Library

[12]

Gotsman, A., Berdine, J., Cook, B.: Precision and the conjunction rule in concurrent separation logic. In: Proceedings of MFPS (2011)

Digital Library

[13]

Haack, C., Hurlin, C.: Resource usage protocols for iterators. In: Proceedings of IWACO (2008)

[14]

Jensen, J. B., Birkedal, L.: Fictional separation logic: Appendix (2011), http://itu.dk/˜jobr/research/fsl-appendix.pdf

[15]

Jensen, J. B., Birkedal, L., Sestoft, P.: Modular verification of linked lists with views via separation logic. Journal of Object Technology 10, 2:1-2:20 (2011)

[16]

Krishnaswami, N. R.: Verifying Higher-Order Imperative Programs with Higher-Order Separation Logic. Ph. D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (2011)

[17]

Meyers, S.: More Effective C++: 35 New Ways to Improve Your Programs and Designs, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional (1996)

Digital Library

[18]

Parkinson, M. J., Bierman, G. M.: Separation logic and abstraction. In: Proceedings of POPL, pp. 247-258 (2005)

Digital Library

[19]

Pilkiewicz, A., Pottier, F.: The essence of monotonic state. In: Proceedings of TLDI (2011)

Digital Library

[20]

Reynolds, J.C.: Separation logic: A logic for shared mutable data structures. In: Proceedings of LICS, pp. 55-74 (2002)

Digital Library

[21]

Schwinghammer, J., Birkedal, L., Reus, B., Yang, H.: Nested Hoare Triples and Frame Rules for Higher-Order Store. In: Grädel, E., Kahle, R. (eds.) CSL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5771, pp. 440-454. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

Digital Library

Cited By

Zackon DSano CMomigliano APientka BStark KTimany ABlazy STabareau N(2025)Split Decisions: Explicit Contexts for Substructural LanguagesProceedings of the 14th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs10.1145/3703595.3705888(257-271)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3703595.3705888
Reitz AFromherz AProtzenko J(2024)StarMalloc: Verifying a Modern, Hardened Memory AllocatorProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36897738:OOPSLA2(1757-1786)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689773
Hance THowell JPadon OParno B(2023)Leaf: Modularity for Temporary Sharing in Separation LogicProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36227987:OOPSLA2(31-58)Online publication date: 16-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3622798
Show More Cited By

Fictional separation logic
1. Theory of computation
  1. Semantics and reasoning

Recommendations

Interactive proofs in higher-order concurrent separation logic
POPL '17: Proceedings of the 44th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages

When using a proof assistant to reason in an embedded logic -- like separation logic -- one cannot benefit from the proof contexts and basic tactics of the proof assistant. This results in proofs that are at a too low level of abstraction because they ...
Interactive proofs in higher-order concurrent separation logic
POPL '17

When using a proof assistant to reason in an embedded logic -- like separation logic -- one cannot benefit from the proof contexts and basic tactics of the proof assistant. This results in proofs that are at a too low level of abstraction because they ...
Two-Variable Separation Logic and Its Inner Circle

Separation logic is a well-known assertion language for Hoare-style proof systems. We show that first-order separation logic with a unique record field restricted to two quantified variables and no program variables is undecidable. This is among the ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings

ESOP'12: Proceedings of the 21st European conference on Programming Languages and Systems

March 2012

599 pages

ISBN:9783642288685

Editor:
Helmut Seidl
Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstrasse 3, Garching, Germany

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 24 March 2012

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

38
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

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

Reflects downloads up to 31 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Zackon DSano CMomigliano APientka BStark KTimany ABlazy STabareau N(2025)Split Decisions: Explicit Contexts for Substructural LanguagesProceedings of the 14th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs10.1145/3703595.3705888(257-271)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3703595.3705888
Reitz AFromherz AProtzenko J(2024)StarMalloc: Verifying a Modern, Hardened Memory AllocatorProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36897738:OOPSLA2(1757-1786)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689773
Hance THowell JPadon OParno B(2023)Leaf: Modularity for Temporary Sharing in Separation LogicProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36227987:OOPSLA2(31-58)Online publication date: 16-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3622798
Lorenzen ALeijen DSwierstra W(2023)FP²: Fully in-Place Functional ProgrammingProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36078407:ICFP(275-304)Online publication date: 31-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3607840
Arasu ARamananandro TRastogi ASwamy NFromherz AHietala KParno BRamamurthy RKrebbers RTraytel DPientka BZdancewic S(2023)FastVer2: A Provably Correct Monitor for Concurrent, Key-Value StoresProceedings of the 12th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs10.1145/3573105.3575687(30-46)Online publication date: 11-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3573105.3575687
Patel NKrishna SShasha DWies T(2021)Verifying concurrent multicopy search structuresProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34854905:OOPSLA(1-32)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3485490
Swamy NRastogi AFromherz AMerigoux DAhman DMartínez G(2020)SteelCore: an extensible concurrent separation logic for effectful dependently typed programsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34090034:ICFP(1-30)Online publication date: 3-Aug-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3409003
Hóu ZClouston RGoré RTiu A(2018)Modular Labelled Sequent Calculi for Abstract Separation LogicsACM Transactions on Computational Logic10.1145/319738319:2(1-35)Online publication date: 28-Apr-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3197383
He MVafeiadis VQin SFerreira J(2018)GPS$$+$$+International Journal of Parallel Programming10.1007/s10766-017-0518-x46:6(1157-1183)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10766-017-0518-x
Jung RJourdan JKrebbers RDreyer D(2017)RustBelt: securing the foundations of the Rust programming languageProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/31581542:POPL(1-34)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3158154
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten