research-article

Unifying refinement and hoare-style reasoning in a logic for higher-order concurrency

Authors:

Lars BirkedalAuthors Info & Claims

ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 48, Issue 9

Pages 377 - 390

https://doi.org/10.1145/2544174.2500600

Published: 25 September 2013 Publication History

Abstract

Modular programming and modular verification go hand in hand, but most existing logics for concurrency ignore two crucial forms of modularity: *higher-order functions*, which are essential for building reusable components, and *granularity abstraction*, a key technique for hiding the intricacies of fine-grained concurrent data structures from the clients of those data structures. In this paper, we present CaReSL, the first logic to support the use of granularity abstraction for modular verification of higher-order concurrent programs. After motivating the features of CaReSL through a variety of illustrative examples, we demonstrate its effectiveness by using it to tackle a significant case study: the first formal proof of (partial) correctness for Hendler et al.'s "flat combining" algorithm.

References

[1]

A. Ahmed, D. Dreyer, and A. Rossberg. State-dependent representation independence. In POPL, 2009.

Digital Library

[2]

R. D. Blumofe, C. F. Joerg, B. C. Kuszmaul, C. E. Leiserson, K. H. Randall, and Y. Zhou. Cilk: An efficient multithreaded runtime system. JPDC, 37(1):55--69, Aug. 1996.

Digital Library

[3]

T. Dinsdale-Young, M. Dodds, P. Gardner, M. Parkinson, and V. Vafeiadis. Concurrent abstract predicates. In ECOOP, 2010.

Digital Library

[4]

M. Dodds, S. Jagannathan, and M. Parkinson. Modular reasoning for deterministic parallelism. In POPL, 2011.

Digital Library

[5]

D. Dreyer, G. Neis, A. Rossberg, and L. Birkedal. A relational modal logic for higher-order stateful ADTs. In POPL, 2010.

Digital Library

[6]

T. Elmas, S. Qadeer, A. Sezgin, O. Subasi, and S. Tasiran. Simplifying linearizability proofs with reduction and abstraction. In TACAS, 2010.

Digital Library

[7]

X. Feng. Local rely-guarantee reasoning. In POPL, 2009.

Digital Library

[8]

I. Filipović, P. O'Hearn, N. Rinetzky, and H. Yang. Abstraction for concurrent objects. Theoretical Computer Science, 411, 2010.

Digital Library

[9]

A. Gotsman and H. Yang. Linearizability with ownership transfer. In CONCUR, 2012.

Digital Library

[10]

T. Harris, S. Marlow, S. Peyton-Jones, and M. Herlihy. Composable memory transactions. In PPOPP, 2005.

Digital Library

[11]

D. Hendler, I. Incze, N. Shavit, and M. Tzafrir. Flat combining and the synchronization-parallelism tradeoff. In SPAA, 2010.

Digital Library

[12]

D. Hendler, N. Shavit, and L. Yerushalmi. A scalable lock-free stack algorithm. In SPAA, 2004.

Digital Library

[13]

M. P. Herlihy and J. M. Wing. Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects. TOPLAS, 12(3):463--492, 1990.

Digital Library

[14]

A. Hobor, A. W. Appel, and F. Z. Nardelli. Oracle semantics for concurrent separation logic. In ESOP, 2008.

Digital Library

[15]

C. B. Jones. Tentative steps toward a development method for interfering programs. TOPLAS, 5(4):596--619, 1983.

Digital Library

[16]

D. Lea. Thetextsfjava.util.concurrenttextsfConcurrentHashMap.

[17]

R. Ley-Wild and A. Nanevski. Subjective auxiliary state for coarse-grained concurrency. In POPL, 2013.

Digital Library

[18]

H. Liang and X. Feng. Modular verification of linearizability with non-fixed linearization points. In PLDI, 2013.

Digital Library

[19]

R. J. Lipton. Reduction: a method of proving properties of parallel programs. Commun. ACM, 18(12):717--721, 1975.

Digital Library

[20]

P. W. O'Hearn. Resources, concurrency, and local reasoning. Theor. Comput. Sci., 375(1-3):271--307, 2007.

Digital Library

[21]

M. Parkinson and G. Bierman. Separation logic and abstraction. In POPL, 2005.

Digital Library

[22]

A. M. Pitts and I. Stark. Operational reasoning for functions with local state. In HOOTS, 1998.

Digital Library

[23]

G. Plotkin and M. Abadi. A logic for parametric polymorphism. In TLCA, 1993.

Digital Library

[24]

F. Pottier. Hiding local state in direct style: a higher-order anti-frame rule. In LICS, 2008.

Digital Library

[25]

J. H. Reppy. Higher-order concurrency. PhD thesis, Cornell University, 1992.

Digital Library

[26]

J. C. Reynolds. Separation logic: A logic for shared mutable data structures. In LICS, 2002.

Digital Library

[27]

K. Svendsen, L. Birkedal, and M. Parkinson. Modular reasoning about separation of concurrent data structures. In ESOP, 2013.

Digital Library

[28]

R. Treiber. Systems programming: coping with parallelism. Technical report, Almaden Research Center, 1986.

[29]

P. W. Trinder, K. Hammond, H.-W. Loidl, and S. L. Peyton Jones. Algorithm

[30]

strategy = parallelism. JFP, 8(1):23--60, Jan. 1998.

Digital Library

[31]

A. Turon, D. Dreyer, and L. Birkedal. Unifying refinement and Hoare-style reasoning in a logic for higher-order concurrency: Appendix. http://www.mpi-sws.org/ turon/caresl/appendix.pdf.

[32]

A. Turon, J. Thamsborg, A. Ahmed, L. Birkedal, and D. Dreyer. Logical relations for fine-grained concurrency. In POPL, 2013.

Digital Library

[33]

V. Vafeiadis. Modular fine-grained concurrency verification. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2008.

[34]

H. Yang. Relational separation logic. TCS, 375(1-3):308--334, 2007.

Digital Library

Cited By

Kim JGu RShao Z(2024) : A simplified and abstract multicore hardware model for large scale system software formal verification Journal of Systems Architecture10.1016/j.sysarc.2023.103049147(103049)Online publication date: Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2023.103049
Kim JKoenig JChen HGu RShao Z(2024) : A template to build verified thread-local interfaces with software scheduler abstractions Journal of Systems Architecture10.1016/j.sysarc.2023.103046147(103046)Online publication date: Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2023.103046
Wolf FSchwerhoff MMüller P(2021)Concise Outlines for a Complex Logic: A Proof Outline Checker for TaDAFormal Methods10.1007/978-3-030-90870-6_22(407-426)Online publication date: 20-Nov-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-90870-6_22
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Unifying refinement and hoare-style reasoning in a logic for higher-order concurrency
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software notations and tools
    1. Formal language definitions
2. Theory of computation

Recommendations

Unifying refinement and hoare-style reasoning in a logic for higher-order concurrency
ICFP '13: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming

Modular programming and modular verification go hand in hand, but most existing logics for concurrency ignore two crucial forms of modularity: *higher-order functions*, which are essential for building reusable components, and *granularity abstraction*, ...
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 ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM SIGPLAN Notices

ACM SIGPLAN Notices Volume 48, Issue 9

ICFP '13

September 2013

457 pages

ISSN:0362-1340

EISSN:1558-1160

DOI:10.1145/2544174

Editor:
Mark W. Bailey
Hamilton College, Clinton, NY

Issue’s Table of Contents

ICFP '13: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming
September 2013
484 pages
ISBN:9781450323260
DOI:10.1145/2500365
General Chair:
Greg Morrisett
Harvard University, USA
,
Program Chair:
Tarmo Uustalu
Institute of Cybernetics at TUT, Estonia

Copyright © 2013 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 25 September 2013

Published in SIGPLAN Volume 48, Issue 9

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

101
Total Citations
View Citations
390
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)48
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

Reflects downloads up to 15 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Kim JGu RShao Z(2024) : A simplified and abstract multicore hardware model for large scale system software formal verification Journal of Systems Architecture10.1016/j.sysarc.2023.103049147(103049)Online publication date: Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2023.103049
Kim JKoenig JChen HGu RShao Z(2024) : A template to build verified thread-local interfaces with software scheduler abstractions Journal of Systems Architecture10.1016/j.sysarc.2023.103046147(103046)Online publication date: Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2023.103046
Wolf FSchwerhoff MMüller P(2021)Concise Outlines for a Complex Logic: A Proof Outline Checker for TaDAFormal Methods10.1007/978-3-030-90870-6_22(407-426)Online publication date: 20-Nov-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-90870-6_22
Nanevski ABanerjee ADelbianco GFábregas I(2019)Specifying concurrent programs in separation logic: morphisms and simulationsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/33605873:OOPSLA(1-30)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3360587
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
Xiong SPinto PNtzik GGardner P(2017)Abstract Specifications for Concurrent MapsProgramming Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-662-54434-1_36(964-990)Online publication date: 25-Apr-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-662-54434-1_36
Tassarotti JJung RHarper R(2017)A Higher-Order Logic for Concurrent Termination-Preserving RefinementProgramming Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-662-54434-1_34(909-936)Online publication date: 25-Apr-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-662-54434-1_34
Krebbers RJung RBizjak AJourdan JDreyer DBirkedal L(2017)The Essence of Higher-Order Concurrent Separation LogicProgramming Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-662-54434-1_26(696-723)Online publication date: 25-Apr-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-662-54434-1_26
Dinsdale-Young Tda Rocha Pinto PAndersen KBirkedal L(2017)CaperProgramming Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-662-54434-1_16(420-447)Online publication date: 25-Apr-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-662-54434-1_16
Vafeiadis V(2017)Program Verification Under Weak Memory Consistency Using Separation LogicComputer Aided Verification10.1007/978-3-319-63387-9_2(30-46)Online publication date: 13-Jul-2017
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63387-9_2
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents