skip to main content

Title: A formal foundation for symbolic evaluation with merging
Reusable symbolic evaluators are a key building block of solver-aided verification and synthesis tools. A reusable evaluator reduces the semantics of all paths in a program to logical constraints, and a client tool uses these constraints to formulate a satisfiability query that is discharged with SAT or SMT solvers. The correctness of the evaluator is critical to the soundness of the tool and the domain properties it aims to guarantee. Yet so far, the trust in these evaluators has been based on an ad-hoc foundation of testing and manual reasoning. This paper presents the first formal framework for reasoning about the behavior of reusable symbolic evaluators. We develop a new symbolic semantics for these evaluators that incorporates state merging. Symbolic evaluators use state merging to avoid path explosion and generate compact encodings. To accommodate a wide range of implementations, our semantics is parameterized by a symbolic factory, which abstracts away the details of merging and creation of symbolic values. The semantics targets a rich language that extends Core Scheme with assumptions and assertions, and thus supports branching, loops, and (first-class) procedures. The semantics is designed to support reusability, by guaranteeing two key properties: legality of the generated symbolic states, and more » the reducibility of symbolic evaluation to concrete evaluation. Legality makes it simpler for client tools to formulate queries, and reducibility enables testing of client tools on concrete inputs. We use the Lean theorem prover to mechanize our symbolic semantics, prove that it is sound and complete with respect to the concrete semantics, and prove that it guarantees legality and reducibility. To demonstrate the generality of our semantics, we develop Leanette, a reference evaluator written in Lean, and Rosette 4, an optimized evaluator written in Racket. We prove Leanette correct with respect to the semantics, and validate Rosette 4 against Leanette via solver-aided differential testing. To demonstrate the practicality of our approach, we port 16 published verification and synthesis tools from Rosette 3 to Rosette 4. Rosette 3 is an existing reusable evaluator that implements the classic merging semantics, adopted from bounded model checking. Rosette 4 replaces the semantic core of Rosette 3 but keeps its optimized symbolic factory. Our results show that Rosette 4 matches the performance of Rosette 3 across a wide range of benchmarks, while providing a cleaner interface that simplifies the implementation of client tools. « less
; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1651225 1836724 1844807
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
1 to 28
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Effective symbolic evaluation is key to building scalable ver- ification and synthesis tools based on SMT solving. These tools use sym- bolic evaluators to reduce the semantics of all paths through a finite program to logical constraints, discharged with an SMT solver. Using an evaluator effectively requires tool developers to be able to identify and re- pair performance bottlenecks in code under all-path evaluation, a difficult task, even for experts. This paper presents a new method for repairing such bottlenecks automatically. The key idea is to formulate the symbolic performance repair problem as combinatorial search through a space of semantics-preserving transformations, or repairs, to find an equivalent program with minimal cost under symbolic evaluation. The key to real- izing this idea is (1) defining a small set of generic repairs that can be combined to fix common bottlenecks, and (2) searching for combinations of these repairs to find good solutions quickly and best ones eventually. Our technique, SymFix, contributes repairs based on deforestation and symbolic reflection, and an efficient algorithm that uses symbolic profil- ing to guide the search for fixes. To evaluate SymFix, we implement it for the Rosette solver-aided language and symbolic evaluator. Applying SymFix to 18 publishedmore »verification and synthesis tools built in Rosette, we find that it automatically improves the performance of 12 tools by a factor of 1.1×–91.7×, and 4 of these fixes match or outperform expert- written repairs. SymFix also finds 5 fixes that were missed by experts.« less
  2. To guard against machine failures, modern internet services store multiple replicas of the same application data within and across data centers, which introduces the problem of keeping geodistributed replicas consistent with one another in the face of network partitions and unpredictable message latency. To avoid costly and conservative synchronization protocols, many real-world systems provide only weak consistency guarantees (e.g., eventual, causal, or PRAM consistency), which permit certain kinds of disagreement among replicas. There has been much recent interest in language support for specifying and verifying such consistency properties. Although these properties are usually beyond the scope of what traditional type checkers or compiler analyses can guarantee, solver-aided languages are up to the task. Inspired by systems like Liquid Haskell [43] and Rosette [42], we believe that close integration between a language and a solver is the right path to consistent-by-construction distributed applications. Unfortunately, verifying distributed consistency properties requires reasoning about transitive relations (e.g., causality or happens-before), partial orders (e.g., the lattice of replica states under a convergent merge operation), and properties relevant to message processing or API invocation (e.g., commutativity and idempotence) that cannot be easily or efficiently carried out by general-purpose SMT solvers that lack native support for thismore »kind of reasoning. We argue that domain-specific SMT-based tools that exploit the mathematical foundations of distributed consistency would enable both more efficient verification and improved ease of use for domain experts. The principle of exploiting domain knowledge for efficiency and expressivity that has borne fruit elsewhere — such as in the development of high-performance domain-specific languages that trade off generality to gain both performance and productivity — also applies here. Languages augmented with domain-specific, consistency-aware solvers would support the rapid implementation of formally verified programming abstractions that guarantee distributed consistency. In the long run, we aim to democratize the development of such domain-specific solvers by creating a framework for domain-specific solver development that brings new theory solver implementation within the reach of programmers who are not necessarily SMT solver internals experts.« less
  3. In database-as-a-service platforms, automated ver-ification of query equivalence helps eliminate redundant computation in the form of overlapping sub-queries. Researchers have proposed two pragmatic techniques to tackle this problem. The first approach consists of reducing the queries to algebraic expressions and proving their equivalence using an algebraic theory. The limitations of this technique are threefold. It cannot prove the equivalence of queries with significant differences in the attributes of their relational operators (e.g., predicates in the filter operator). It does not support certain widely-used SQL features (e.g., NULL values). Its verification procedure is computationally intensive. The second approach transforms this problem to a constraint satisfaction problem and leverages a general-purpose solver to determine query equivalence. This technique consists of deriving the symbolic representation of the queries and proving their equivalence by determining the query containment relationship between the symbolic expressions. While the latter approach addresses all the limitations of the former technique, it only proves the equivalence of queries under set semantics (i.e., output tables must not contain duplicate tuples). However, in practice, database applications use bag semantics (i.e., output tables may contain duplicate tuples) In this paper, we introduce a novel symbolic approach for proving query equivalence under bag semantics.more »We transform the problem of proving query equivalence under bag semantics to that of proving the existence of a bijective, identity map between tuples returned by the queries on all valid inputs. We classify SQL queries into four categories, and propose a set of novel category-specific verification algorithms. We implement this symbolic approach in SPES and demonstrate that it proves the equivalence of a larger set of query pairs (95/232) under bag semantics compared to the SOTA tools based on algebraic (30/232) and symbolic approaches (67/232) under set and bag semantics, respectively. Furthermore, SPES is 3X faster than the symbolic tool that proves equivalence under set semantics.« less
  4. Highly-configurable software underpins much of our computing infrastructure. It enables extensive reuse, but opens the door to broken configuration specifications. The configuration specification language, Kconfig, is designed to prevent invalid configurations of the Linux kernel from being built. However, the astronomical size of the configuration space for Linux makes finding specification bugs difficult by hand or with random testing. In this paper, we introduce a software model checking framework for building Kconfig static analysis tools. We develop a formal semantics of the Kconfig language and implement the semantics in a symbolic evaluator called kclause that models Kconfig behavior as logical formulas. We then design and implement a bug finder, called kismet, that takes kclause models and leverages automated theorem proving to find unmet dependency bugs. kismet is evaluated for its precision, performance, and impact on kernel development for a recent version of Linux, which has over 140,000 lines of Kconfig across 28 architecture-specific specifications. Our evaluation finds 781 bugs (151 when considering sharing among Kconfig specifications) with 100% precision, spending between 37 and 90 minutes for each Kconfig specification, although it misses some bugs due to underapproximation. Compared to random testing, kismet finds substantially more true positive bugs in amore »fraction of the time.« less
  5. Reasoning about memory aliasing and mutation in software verification is a hard problem. This is especially true for systems using SMT-based automated theorem provers. Memory reasoning in SMT verification typically requires a nontrivial amount of manual effort to specify heap invariants, as well as extensive alias reasoning from the SMT solver. In this paper, we present a hybrid approach that combines linear types with SMT-based verification for memory reasoning. We integrate linear types into Dafny, a verification language with an SMT backend, and show that the two approaches complement each other. By separating memory reasoning from verification conditions, linear types reduce the SMT solving time. At the same time, the expressiveness of SMT queries extends the flexibility of the linear type system. In particular, it allows our linear type system to easily and correctly mix linear and nonlinear data in novel ways, encapsulating linear data inside nonlinear data and vice-versa. We formalize the core of our extensions, prove soundness, and provide algorithms for linear type checking. We evaluate our approach by converting the implementation of a verified storage system (about 24K lines of code and proof) written in Dafny, to use our extended Dafny. The resulting system uses linear typesmore »for 91% of the code and SMT-based heap reasoning for the remaining 9%. We show that the converted system has 28% fewer lines of proofs and 30% shorter verification time overall. We discuss the development overhead in the original system due to SMT-based heap reasoning and highlight the improved developer experience when using linear types.« less