Proof-carrying Code System Research Articles

Modular verification of assembly code with stack-based control abstractions

Runtime stacks are critical components of any modern software--they are used to implement powerful control structures such as function call/return, stack cutting and unwinding, coroutines, and thread context switch. Stack operations, however, are very hard to reason about: there are no known formal specifications for certifying C-style setjmp/longjmp, stack cutting and unwinding, or weak continuations (in C--). In many proof-carrying code (PCC) systems, return code pointers and exception handlers are treated as general first-class functions (as in continuation-passing style) even though both should have more limited scopes.In this paper we show that stack-based control abstractions follow a much simpler pattern than general first-class code pointers. We present a simple but flexible Hoare-style framework for modular verification of assembly code with all kinds of stackbased control abstractions, including function call/return, tail call, setjmp/longjmp, weak continuation, stack cutting, stack unwinding, multi-return function call, coroutines, and thread context switch. Instead of presenting a specific logic for each control structure, we develop all reasoning systems as instances of a generic framework. This allows program modules and their proofs developed in different PCC systems to be linked together. Our system is fully mechanized. We give the complete soundness proof and a full verification of several examples in the Coq proof assistant.

Certified assembly programming with embedded code pointers

Embedded code pointers (ECPs) are stored handles of functions and continuations commonly seen in low-level binaries as well as functional or higher-order programs. ECPs are known to be very hard to support well in Hoare-logic style verification systems. As a result, existing proof-carrying code (PCC) systems have to either sacrifice the expressiveness or the modularity of program specifications, or resort to construction of complex semantic models. In Reynolds's LICS'02 paper, supporting ECPs is listed as one of the main open problems for separation logic.In this paper we present a simple and general technique for solving the ECP problem for Hoare-logic-based PCC systems. By adding a small amount of syntax to the assertion language, we show how to combine semantic consequence relation with syntactic proof techniques. The result is a new powerful framework that can perform modular reasoning on ECPs while still retaining the expressiveness of Hoare logic. We show how to use our techniques to support polymorphism, closures, and other language extensions and how to solve the ECP problem for separation logic. Our system is fully mechanized. We give its complete soundness proof and a full verification of Reynolds's CPS-style "list-append" example in the Coq proof assistant.

Bytecode Analysis for Proof Carrying Code

Out of annotated programs proof carrying code systems construct and prove verification conditions that guarantee a given safety policy. The annotations may come from various program analyzers and must not be trusted as they need to be verified. A generic verification condition generator can be utilized such that a combination of annotations is verified incrementally. New annotations may be verified by using previously verified ones as trusted facts. We show how results from a trusted type analyzer may be combined with untrusted interval analysis to automatically verify that bytecode programs do not overflow. All trusted components are formalized and verified in Isabelle/HOL.

Modular verification of concurrent assembly code with dynamic thread creation and termination

Proof-carrying code (PCC) is a general framework that can, in principle, verify safety properties of arbitrary machine-language programs. Existing PCC systems and typed assembly languages, however, can only handle sequential programs. This severely limits their applicability since many real-world systems use some form of concurrency in their core software. Recently Yu and Shao proposed a logic-based "type" system for verifying concurrent assembly programs. Their thread model, however, is rather restrictive in that no threads can be created or terminated dynamically and no sharing of code is allowed between threads. In this paper, we present a new formal framework for verifying general multi-threaded assembly code with unbounded dynamic thread creation and termination as well as sharing of code between threads. We adapt and generalize the rely-guarantee methodology to the assembly level and show how to specify the semantics of thread "fork" with argument passing. In particular, we allow threads to have different assumptions and guarantees at different stages of their lifetime so they can coexist with the dynamically changing thread environment. Our work provides a foundation for certifying realistic multi-threaded programs and makes an important advance toward generating proof-carrying concurrent code.

The design and implementation of a certifying compiler

This paper presents the design and implementation of a compiler that translates programs written in a type-safe subset of the C programming language into highly optimized DEC Alpha assembly language programs, and a certifier that automatically checks the type safety and memory safety of any assembly language program produced by the compiler. The result of the certifier is either a formal proof of type safety or a counterexample pointing to a potential violation of the type system by the target program. The ensemble of the compiler and the certifier is called a certifying compiler. Several advantages of certifying compilation over previous approaches can be claimed. The notion of a certifying compiler is significantly easier to employ than a formal compiler verification, in part because it is generally easier to verify the correctness of the result of a computation than to prove the correctness of the computation itself. Also, the approach can be applied even to highly optimizing compilers, as demonstrated by the fact that our compiler generates target code, for a range of realistic C programs, which is competitive with both the cc and gcc compilers with all optimizations enabled. The certifier also drastically improves the effectiveness of compiler testing because, for each test case, it statically signals compilation errors that might otherwise require many executions to detect. Finally, this approach is a practical way to produce the safety proofs for a Proof-Carrying Code system, and thus may be useful in a system for safe mobile code.

Building certified libraries for PCC: dynamic storage allocation

Proof-carrying code (PCC) allows a code producer to provide to a host a program along with its formal safety proof. The proof attests to a certain safety policy enforced by the code, and can be mechanically checked by the host. While this language-based approach to code certification is very general in principle, existing PCC systems have only focused on programs whose safety proofs can be automatically generated. As a result, many low-level system libraries (e.g., memory management) have not yet been handled. In this paper, we explore a complementary approach in which general properties and program correctness are semi-automatically certified. In particular, we introduce a low-level language, CAP, for building certified programs and present a certified library for dynamic storage allocation.

A Trustworthy Proof Checker

Proof-carrying code (PCC) and other applications in computer security require machine-checkable proofs of properties of machine-language programs. The main advantage of the PCC approach is that the amount of code that must be explicitly trusted is very small: it consists of the logic in which predicates and proofs are expressed, the safety predicate, and the proof checker. We have built a minimal proof checker, and we explain its design principles and the representation issues of the logic, safety predicate, and safety proofs. We show that the trusted computing base (TCB) in such a system can indeed be very small. In our current system the TCB is less than 2,700 lines of code (an order of magnitude smaller even than other PCC systems), which adds to our confidence of its correctness.

The design and implementation of a certifying compiler

This paper presents the design and implementation of a compiler that translates programs written in a type-safe subset of the C programming language into highly optimized DEC Alpha assembly language programs, and a certifier that automatically checks the type safety and memory safety of any assembly language program produced by the compiler. The result of the certifier is either a formal proof of type safety or a counterexample pointing to a potential violation of the type system by the target program. The ensemble of the compiler and the certifier is called a certifying compiler .Several advantages of certifying compilation over previous approaches can be claimed. The notion of a certifying compiler is significantly easier to employ than a formal compiler verification, in part because it is generally easier to verify the correctness of the result of a computation than to prove the correctness of the computation itself. Also, the approach can be applied even to highly optimizing compilers, as demonstrated by the fact that our compiler generates target code, for a range of realistic C programs, which is competitive with both the cc and gcc compilers with all optimizations enabled. The certifier also drastically improves the effectiveness of compiler testing because, for each test case, it statically signals compilation errors that might otherwise require many executions to detect. Finally, this approach is a practical way to produce the safety proofs for a Proof-Carrying Code system, and thus may be useful in a system for safe mobile code.