An official website of the United States government
Verified compilation of open modules (i.e., modules whose functionality depends on other modules) provides a foundation for end-to-end verification of modular programs ubiquitous in contemporary software. However, despite intensive investigation in this topic for decades, the proposed approaches are still difficult to use in practice as they rely on assumptions about the internal working of compilers which make it difficult for external users to apply the verification results. We propose an approach to verified compositional compilation without such assumptions in the setting of verifying compilation of heterogeneous modules written in first-order languages supporting global memory and pointers. Our approach is based on the memory model of CompCert and a new discovery that a Kripke relation with a notion of memory protection can serve as a uniform and composable semantic interface for the compiler passes. By absorbing the rely-guarantee conditions on memory evolution for all compiler passes into this Kripke Memory Relation and by piggybacking requirements on compiler optimizations onto it, we get compositional correctness theorems for realistic optimizing compilers as refinements that directly relate native semantics of open modules and that are ignorant of intermediate compilation processes. Such direct refinements support all the compositionality and adequacy properties essential for verified compilation of open modules. We have applied this approach to the full compilation chain of CompCert with its Clight source language and demonstrated that our compiler correctness theorem is open to composition and intuitive to use with reduced verification complexity through end-to-end verification of non-trivial heterogeneous modules that may freely invoke each other (e.g., mutually recursively).
more »
« less
Compositional optimizations for CertiCoq
Compositional compiler verification is a difficult problem that focuses on separate compilation of program components with possibly different verified compilers. Logical relations are widely used in proving correctness of program transformations in higher-order languages; however, they do not scale to compositional verification of multi-pass compilers due to their lack of transitivity. The only known technique to apply to compositional verification of multi-pass compilers for higher-order languages is parametric inter-language simulations (PILS), which is however significantly more complicated than traditional proof techniques for compiler correctness. In this paper, we present a novel verification framework forlightweight compositional compiler correctness. We demonstrate that by imposing the additional restriction that program components are compiled by pipelines that go throughthe same sequence of intermediate representations, logical relation proofs can be transitively composed in order to derive an end-to-end compositional specification for multi-pass compiler pipelines. Unlike traditional logical-relation frameworks, our framework supports divergence preservation—even when transformations reduce the number of program steps. We achieve this by parameterizing our logical relations with a pair ofrelational invariants. We apply this technique to verify a multi-pass, optimizing middle-end pipeline for CertiCoq, a compiler from Gallina (Coq’s specification language) to C. The pipeline optimizes and closure-converts an untyped functional intermediate language (ANF or CPS) to a subset of that language without nested functions, which can be easily code-generated to low-level languages. Notably, our pipeline performs more complex closure-allocation optimizations than the state of the art in verified compilation. Using our novel verification framework, we prove an end-to-end theorem for our pipeline that covers both termination and divergence and applies to whole-program and separate compilation, even when different modules are compiled with different optimizations. Our results are mechanized in the Coq proof assistant.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10601924
- Publisher / Repository:
- Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
- Volume:
- 5
- Issue:
- ICFP
- ISSN:
- 2475-1421
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 1-30
- Size(s):
- p. 1-30
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This paper presents ProbCompCert, a compiler for a subset of the Stan probabilistic programming language (PPL), in which several key compiler passes have been formally verified using the Coq proof assistant. Because of the probabilistic nature of PPLs, bugs in their compilers can be difficult to detect and fix, making verification an interesting possibility. However, proving correctness of PPL compilation requires new techniques because certain transformations performed by compilers for PPLs are quite different from other kinds of languages. This paper describes techniques for verifying such transformations and their application in ProbCompCert. In the course of verifying ProbCompCert, we found an error in the Stan language reference manual related to the semantics and implementation of a key language construct.more » « less
-
Enea, Constantin; Lal, Akash (Ed.)Abstract Zero Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) are cryptographic protocols by which a prover convinces a verifier of the truth of a statement without revealing any other information. Typically, statements are expressed in a high-level language and then compiled to a low-level representation on which the ZKP operates. Thus,a bug in a ZKP compiler can compromise the statement that the ZK proof is supposed to establish.This paper takes a step towards ZKP compiler correctness by partially verifying afield-blastingcompiler pass, a pass that translates Boolean and bit-vector logic into equivalent operations in a finite field. First, we define correctness for field-blasters and ZKP compilers more generally. Next, we describe the specific field-blaster using a set of encoding rules and define verification conditions for individual rules. Finally, we connect the rules and the correctness definition by showing that if our verification conditions hold, the field-blaster is correct. We have implemented our approach in the CirC ZKP compiler and have proved bounded versions of the corresponding verification conditions. We show that our partially verified field-blaster does not hurt the performance of the compiler or its output; we also report on four bugs uncovered during verification.more » « less
-
Cryptographic tools like proof systems, multi-party computation, and fully homomorphic encryption are usually applied to computations expressed as systems of arithmetic constraints. In practice, this means that these applications rely on compilers from high-level programming languages (like C) to such constraints. This compilation task is challenging, but not entirely new: the software verification community has a rich literature on compiling programs to logical constraints (like SAT or SMT). In this work, we show that building shared compiler infrastructure for compiling to constraint representations is possible, because these representations share a common abstraction: stateless, non-uniform, non-deterministic computations that we call existentially quantified circuits, or EQCs. Moreover, we show that this shared infrastructure is useful, because it allows compilers for proof systems to benefit from decades of work on constraint compilation techniques for software verification. To make our approach concrete we create CirC, an infrastructure for building compilers to EQCs. CirC makes it easy to compile to new EQCs: we build support for three, R1CS (used for proof systems), SMT (used for verification and bug-finding), and ILP (used for optimization), in ≈2000 LOC. It’s also easy to extend CirC to support new source languages: we build a feature-complete compiler for a cryptographic language in one week and ≈900 LOC, whereas the reference compiler for the same language took years to write, comprises ≈24000 LOC, and produces worse-performing output than our compiler. Finally, CirC enables novel applications that combine multiple EQCs. For example, we build the first pipeline that (1) automatically identifies bugs in programs, then (2) automatically constructs cryptographic proofs of the bugs’ existence.more » « less
-
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.more » « less
