ing WS1S Systems to Verify Parameterized Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Kai Baukus, Saddek Bensalem, Yassine Lakhnech and Karsten Stahl FMona: A Tool for Expressing Validation Techniques over Infinite State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 J.-P. Bodeveix and M. Filali Transitive Closures of Regular Relations for Verifying Infinite-State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Bengt Jonsson and Marcus Nilsson Diagnostic and Test Generation Using Static Analysis to Improve Automatic Test Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Marius Bozga, Jean-Claude Fernandez and Lucian Ghirvu Efficient Diagnostic Generation for Boolean Equation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Radu Mateescu Efficient Model-Checking Compositional State Space Generation with Partial Order Reductions for Asynchronous Communicating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Jean-Pierre Krimm and Laurent Mounier Checking for CFFD-Preorder with Tester Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Juhana Helovuo and Antti Valmari Fair Bisimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Thomas A. Henzinger and Sriram K. Rajamani Integrating Low Level Symmetries into Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Karsten Schmidt Model-Checking Tools Model Checking Support for the ASM High-Level Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Giuseppe Del Castillo and Kirsten Winter Table of

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Proc. TACAS 2009

The C/C++11 memory model defines the semantics of concurrent memory accesses in C/C++, and in particular supports racy "atomic" accesses at a range of different consistency levels, from very weak consistency ("relaxed") to strong, sequential consistency ("SC"). Unfortunately, as we observe in this paper, the semantics of SC atomic accesses in C/C++11, as well as in all proposed strengthenings of the semantics, is flawed, in that (contrary to previously published results) both suggested compilation schemes to the Power architecture are unsound. We propose a model, called RC11 (for Repaired C11), with a better semantics for SC accesses that restores the soundness of the compilation schemes to Power, maintains the DRF-SC guarantee, and provides stronger, more useful, guarantees to SC fences. In addition, we formally prove, for the first time, the correctness of the proposed stronger compilation schemes to Power that preserve load-to-store ordering and avoid "out-of-thin-air" reads.

/pdf/repairing-sequential-consistency-in-c-c-11-ewt3zjieua.pdf

Repairing sequential consistency in C/C++11

Despite many years of research, it has proven very difficult to develop a memory model for concurrent programming languages that adequately balances the conflicting desiderata of programmers, compilers, and hardware. In this paper, we propose the first relaxed memory model that (1) accounts for a broad spectrum of features from the C++11 concurrency model, (2) is implementable, in the sense that it provably validates many standard compiler optimizations and reorderings, as well as standard compilation schemes to x86-TSO and Power, (3) justifies simple invariant-based reasoning, thus demonstrating the absence of bad "out-of-thin-air" behaviors, (4) supports "DRF" guarantees, ensuring that programmers who use sufficient synchronization need not understand the full complexities of relaxed-memory semantics, and (5) defines the semantics of racy programs without relying on undefined behaviors, which is a prerequisite for applicability to type-safe languages like Java. The key novel idea behind our model is the notion of *promises*: a thread may promise to execute a write in the future, thus enabling other threads to read from that write out of order. Crucially, to prevent out-of-thin-air behaviors, a promise step requires a thread-local certification that it will be possible to execute the promised write even in the absence of the promise. To establish confidence in our model, we have formalized most of our key results in Coq.

/pdf/a-promising-semantics-for-relaxed-memory-concurrency-3c67vyucau.pdf

A promising semantics for relaxed-memory concurrency

ARM has a relaxed memory model, previously specified in informal prose for ARMv7 and ARMv8. Over time, and partly due to work building formal semantics for ARM concurrency, it has become clear that some of the complexity of the model is not justified by the potential benefits. In particular, the model was originally non-multicopy-atomic: writes could become visible to some other threads before becoming visible to all — but this has not been exploited in production implementations, the corresponding potential hardware optimisations are thought to have insufficient benefits in the ARM context, and it gives rise to subtle complications when combined with other ARMv8 features. The ARMv8 architecture has therefore been revised: it now has a multicopy-atomic model. It has also been simplified in other respects, including more straightforward notions of dependency, and the architecture now includes a formal concurrency model.

Simplifying ARM Concurrency: Multicopy-Atomic Axiomatic and Operational Models for ARMv8

A memory consistency model (MCM) is the part of a programming language or computer architecture specification that defines which values can legally be read from shared memory locations. Because MCMs take into account various optimisations employed by architectures and compilers, they are often complex and counterintuitive, which makes them challenging to design and to understand. We identify four tasks involved in designing and understanding MCMs: generating conformance tests, distinguishing two MCMs, checking compiler optimisations, and checking compiler mappings. We show that all four tasks are instances of a general constraint-satisfaction problem to which the solution is either a program or a pair of programs. Although this problem is intractable for automatic solvers when phrased over programs directly, we show how to solve analogous constraints over program executions, and then construct programs that satisfy the original constraints. Our technique, which is implemented in the Alloy modelling framework, is illustrated on several software- and architecture-level MCMs, both axiomatically and operationally defined. We automatically recreate several known results, often in a simpler form, including: distinctions between variants of the C11 MCM; a failure of the "SC-DRF guarantee" in an early C11 draft; that x86 is "multi-copy atomic" and Power is not; bugs in common C11 compiler optimisations; and bugs in a compiler mapping from OpenCL to AMD-style GPUs. We also use our technique to develop and validate a new MCM for NVIDIA GPUs that supports a natural mapping from OpenCL.

/pdf/automatically-comparing-memory-consistency-models-22r2ed6rnn.pdf

Automatically comparing memory consistency models

The ISO C standard does not specify the semantics of many valid programs that use non-portable idioms such as integer-pointer casts. Recent efforts at formal definitions and verified implementation of the C language inherit this feature. By adopting high-level abstract memory models, they validate common optimizations. On the other hand, this prevents reasoning about much low-level code relying on the behavior of common implementations, where formal verification has many applications. We present the first formal memory model that allows many common optimizations and fully supports operations on the representation of pointers. All arithmetic operations are well-defined for pointers that have been cast to integers. Crucially, our model is also simple to understand and program with. All our results are fully formalized in Coq.

/pdf/a-formal-c-memory-model-supporting-integer-pointer-casts-11qsalkhur.pdf

A formal C memory model supporting integer-pointer casts

Major compiler verification efforts, such as the CompCert project, have traditionally simplified the verification problem by restricting attention to the correctness of whole-program compilation, leaving open the question of how to verify the correctness of separate compilation. Recently, a number of sophisticated techniques have been proposed for proving more flexible, compositional notions of compiler correctness, but these approaches tend to be quite heavyweight compared to the simple "closed simulations" used in verifying whole-program compilation. Applying such techniques to a compiler like CompCert, as Stewart et al. have done, involves major changes and extensions to its original verification. In this paper, we show that if we aim somewhat lower---to prove correctness of separate compilation, but only for a *single* compiler---we can drastically simplify the proof effort. Toward this end, we develop several lightweight techniques that recast the compositional verification problem in terms of whole-program compilation, thereby enabling us to largely reuse the closed-simulation proofs from existing compiler verifications. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques by applying them to CompCert 2.4, converting its verification of whole-program compilation into a verification of separate compilation in less than two person-months. This conversion only required a small number of changes to the original proofs, and uncovered two compiler bugs along the way. The result is SepCompCert, the first verification of separate compilation for the full CompCert compiler.

Lightweight verification of separate compilation

Type systems are useful not just for the safety guarantees they provide, but also for helping compilers generate more efficient code by simplifying important program analyses. In Rust, the type system imposes a strict discipline on pointer aliasing, and it is an express goal of the Rust compiler developers to make use of that alias information for the purpose of program optimizations that reorder memory accesses. The problem is that Rust also supports unsafe code, and programmers can write unsafe code that bypasses the usual compiler checks to violate the aliasing discipline. To strike a balance between optimizations and unsafe code, the language needs to provide a set of rules such that unsafe code authors can be sure, if they are following these rules, that the compiler will preserve the semantics of their code despite all the optimizations it is doing. In this work, we propose Stacked Borrows, an operational semantics for memory accesses in Rust. Stacked Borrows defines an aliasing discipline and declares programs violating it to have undefined behavior, meaning the compiler does not have to consider such programs when performing optimizations. We give formal proofs (mechanized in Coq) showing that this rules out enough programs to enable optimizations that reorder memory accesses around unknown code and function calls, based solely on intraprocedural reasoning. We also implemented this operational model in an interpreter for Rust and ran large parts of the Rust standard library test suite in the interpreter to validate that the model permits enough real-world unsafe Rust code.

/pdf/stacked-borrows-an-aliasing-model-for-rust-42i3gkx368.pdf

Jeehoon Kang

Papers

Repairing sequential consistency in C/C++11

A promising semantics for relaxed-memory concurrency

A formal C memory model supporting integer-pointer casts

Lightweight verification of separate compilation

Stacked borrows: an aliasing model for Rust