Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deductive Verification in Decidable Fragments with Ivy

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Static Analysis (SAS 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 11002))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper surveys the work to date on Ivy, a language and a tool for the formal specification and verification of distributed systems. Ivy supports deductive verification using automated provers, model checking, automated testing, manual theorem proving and generation of executable code. In order to achieve greater verification productivity, a key design goal for Ivy is to allow the engineer to apply automated provers in the realm in which their performance is relatively predictable, stable and transparent. In particular Ivy focuses on the use of decidable fragments of first-order logic. We consider the rationale or Ivy’s design, the various capabilities of the tool, as well as case studies and applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The temporal verification problem in this setting is \(\varPi _1^1\)-complete [1], while safety verification is in the arithmetical hierarchy.

References

  1. Abadi, M.: The power of temporal proofs. Theor. Comput. Sci. 65(1), 35–83 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(89)90138-2

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: The existence of refinement mappings. Theor. Comput. Sci. 82(2), 253–284 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(91)90224-P

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrett, C.W., Sebastiani, R., Seshia, S.A., Tinelli, C.: Satisfiability modulo theories. In: Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185, pp. 825–885. IOS Press (2009). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-825

  4. Bertot, Y., Castéran, P.: Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development - Coq’Art: The Calculus of Inductive Constructions. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-07964-5

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Biere, A., Artho, C., Schuppan, V.: Liveness checking as safety checking. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 66(2), 160–177 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Biere, A., Heljanko, K., Wieringa, S.: AIGER 1.9 and beyond. Technical report 11/2, Institute for Formal Models and Verification, Johannes Kepler University, July 2011

    Google Scholar 

  7. Black, D.L., Rashid, R.F., Golub, D.B., Hill, C.R.: Translation lookaside buffer consistency: a software approach. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, ASPLOS III, pp. 113–122. ACM, New York (1989). https://doi.org/10.1145/70082.68193

  8. Blundell, C., Giannakopoulou, D., Pasareanu, C.S.: Assume-guarantee testing. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 31(2) (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1118537.1123060

  9. Boyer, R., Moore, J.: A Computational Logic. Academic Press, New York (1979)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Brayton, R., Mishchenko, A.: ABC: an academic industrial-strength verification tool. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 24–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14295-6_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferraiuolo, A., Baumann, A., Hawblitzel, C., Parno, B.: Komodo: using verification to disentangle secure-enclave hardware from software. In: Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Shanghai, China, 28–31 October 2017, pp. 287–305 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Flanagan, C., Leino, K.R.M., Lillibridge, M., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B., Stata, R.: Extended static checking for java. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2002 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2002, pp. 234–245. ACM (2002). https://doi.org/10.1145/512529.512558

  13. Ge, Y., de Moura, L.: Complete instantiation for quantified formulas in satisfiabiliby modulo theories. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 306–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02658-4_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Hawblitzel, C., Howell, J., Kapritsos, M., Lorch, J.R., Parno, B., Roberts, M.L., Setty, S.T.V., Zill, B.: Ironfleet: proving practical distributed systems correct. In: Proceedings of the 25th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP, pp. 1–17 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Henriksen, J.G., Jensen, J., Jørgensen, M., Klarlund, N., Paige, R., Rauhe, T., Sandholm, A.: Mona: monadic second-order logic in practice. In: Brinksma, E., Cleaveland, W.R., Larsen, K.G., Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) TACAS 1995. LNCS, vol. 1019, pp. 89–110. Springer, Heidelberg (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60630-0_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Itzhaky, S.: Automatic reasoning for pointer programs using decidable logics. Ph.D. thesis, Tel Aviv University (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Itzhaky, S., Banerjee, A., Immerman, N., Lahav, O., Nanevski, A., Sagiv, M.: Modular reasoning about heap paths via effectively propositional formulas. In: the 41st Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL, pp. 385–396 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Itzhaky, S., Banerjee, A., Immerman, N., Nanevski, A., Sagiv, M.: Effectively-propositional reasoning about reachability in linked data structures. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 756–772. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_53

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Lamport, L.: The part-time parliament. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 16(2), 133–169 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1145/279227.279229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lamport, L.: Paxos made simple. ACM SIGACT News 32(4), 51–58 (2001). https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/paxos-made-simple/

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lamport, L., Malkhi, D., Zhou, L.: Stoppable paxos. Technical report, Microsoft Research (2008). https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/stoppable-paxos/

  22. Leino, K.R.M.: Dafny: an automatic program verifier for functional correctness. In: Clarke, E.M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6355, pp. 348–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17511-4_20

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Verification of concurrent programs: a temporal proof system. In: de Bakker, J.W., van Leeuwen, J. (eds.) Foundations of Computer Science: Distributed Systems, pp. 163–255. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  24. McMillan, K.L.: Eager abstraction for symbolic model checking. In: Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV 2018). Springer (2018, to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  25. McMillan, K.L.: Ivy. http://microsoft.github.io/ivy/. Accessed 7 May 2018

  26. McMillan, K.L.: Modular specification and verification of a cache-coherent interface. In: Piskac, R., Talupur, M. (eds.) 2016 Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD 2016, Mountain View, CA, USA, 3–6 October 2016, pp. 109–116. IEEE (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/FMCAD.2016.7886668

  27. de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Nelson, C.G.: Techniques for program verification. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford, CA, USA (1980). aAI8011683

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nelson, G., Oppen, D.C.: Simplification by cooperating decision procedures. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 1(2), 245–257 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nipkow, T., Wenzel, M., Paulson, L.C.: A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic Isabelle/HOL. LNCS, vol. 2283. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45949-9

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Ongaro, D., Ousterhout, J.K.: In search of an understandable consensus algorithm. In: 2014 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, USENIX ATC 2014, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 19–20 June 2014, pp. 305–319 (2014). https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc14/technical-sessions/presentation/ongaro

  32. Padon, O.: Deductive verification of distributed protocols in first-order logic. Ph.D. thesis, Tel Aviv University (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Padon, O., Hoenicke, J., Losa, G., Podelski, A., Sagiv, M., Shoham, S.: Reducing liveness to safety in first-order logic. PACMPL 2(POPL), 26:1–26:33 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3158114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Padon, O., Hoenicke, J., McMillan, K.L., Podelski, A., Sagiv, M., Shoham, S.: Temporal prophecy for proving temporal properties of infinite-state systems (in preparation)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Padon, O., Immerman, N., Shoham, S., Karbyshev, A., Sagiv, M.: Decidability of inferring inductive invariants. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2016, St. Petersburg, FL, USA, 20–22 January 2016, pp. 217–231 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2837614.2837640

  36. Padon, O., Losa, G., Sagiv, M., Shoham, S.: Paxos made epr: Decidable reasoning about distributed protocols. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 1(OOPSLA), 108:1–108:31 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3140568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Padon, O., Losa, G., Sagiv, M., Shoham, S.: Paxos made EPR: decidable reasoning about distributed protocols. CoRR abs/1710.07191 (2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.07191

  38. Padon, O., McMillan, K.L., Panda, A., Sagiv, M., Shoham, S.: Ivy: safety verification by interactive generalization. In: Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2016, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 13–17 June 2016, pp. 614–630 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pnueli, A., Shahar, E.: Liveness and acceleration in parameterized verification. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 328–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/10722167_26

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Swamy, N., Chen, J., Fournet, C., Strub, P., Bhargavan, K., Yang, J.: Secure distributed programming with value-dependent types. J. Funct. Program. 4(23), 402–451 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Taube, M., Losa, G., McMillan, K.L., Padon, O., Sagiv, M., Shoham, S., Wilcox, J.R., Woos, D.: Modularity for decidability of deductive verification with applications to distributed systems. In: Foster, J.S., Grossman, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2018, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 18–22 June 2018, pp. 662–677. ACM (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3192366.3192414

  42. Wilcox, J.R., Woos, D., Panchekha, P., Tatlock, Z., Wang, X., Ernst, M.D., Anderson, T.E.: Verdi: a framework for implementing and formally verifying distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Portland, OR, USA, 15–17 June 2015, pp. 357–368 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Woos, D., Wilcox, J.R., Anton, S., Tatlock, Z., Ernst, M.D., Anderson, T.E.: Planning for change in a formal verification of the raft consensus protocol. In: Avigad, J., Chlipala, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs, Saint Petersburg, FL, USA, 20–22 January 2016, pp. 154–165. ACM (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2854065.2854081

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the many researchers that have contributed to the research agenda reviewed in this article, both as co-authors and via insightful discussions, including: Thomas Ball, Amir Ben-Amram, Nikolaj Bjørner, Tej Chajed, Constantin Enea, Yotam M. Y. Feldman, Jochen Hoenicke, Neil Immerman, Shachar Itzhaky, Ranjit Jhala, K. Rustan M. Leino, Giuliano Losa, Yuri Meshman, Leonardo de Moura, Alexander Nutz, Aurojit Panda, Bryan Parno, Andreas Podelski, Shaz Qadeer, Alexander Rabinovich, Mooly Sagiv, Sharon Shoham, Or Tamir, Zachary Tatlock, Marcelo Taube, James R. Wilcox, Doug Woos, and the anonymous referees and artifact evaluation referees of POPL, PLDI, OOPSLA, CAV, and FMCAD.

Padon was supported by Google under a PhD fellowship and by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007–2013)/ERC grant agreement no. [321174-VSSC].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Microsoft Research, Redmond, USA

    Kenneth L. McMillan

  2. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Oded Padon

Authors
  1. Kenneth L. McMillan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oded Padon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth L. McMillan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Andreas Podelski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

McMillan, K.L., Padon, O. (2018). Deductive Verification in Decidable Fragments with Ivy. In: Podelski, A. (eds) Static Analysis. SAS 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11002. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99725-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99725-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99724-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99725-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation