Verif_reverseLinked lists in Verifiable C
Running Example
#include <stddef.h> struct list {unsigned head; struct list *tail;}; struct list *reverse (struct list *p) { struct list *w, *t, *v; w = NULL; v = p; while (v) { t = v>tail; v>tail = w; w = v; v = t; } return w; }
Require VC.Preface. (* Check for the right version of VST *)
Require Import VST.floyd.proofauto.
Require Import VC.reverse.
Instance CompSpecs : compspecs. make_compspecs prog. Defined.
Definition Vprog : varspecs. mk_varspecs prog. Defined.
Require Import VST.floyd.proofauto.
Require Import VC.reverse.
Instance CompSpecs : compspecs. make_compspecs prog. Defined.
Definition Vprog : varspecs. mk_varspecs prog. Defined.
Inductive definition of linked lists
We will define a separationlogic predicate, listrep sigma p,
to describe the concept that the address p in memory is a linked
list that represents the mathematical sequence sigma.
Here, sigma is a list of val, which is C's "value" type:
integers, pointers, floats, etc.
Fixpoint listrep (sigma: list val) (p: val) : mpred :=
match sigma with
 h::hs ⇒
EX y:val, data_at Tsh t_list (h,y) p × listrep hs y
 nil ⇒
!! (p = nullval) && emp
end.
match sigma with
 h::hs ⇒
EX y:val, data_at Tsh t_list (h,y) p × listrep hs y
 nil ⇒
!! (p = nullval) && emp
end.
This says, if sigma has head h and tail hs, then
there is a cons cell at address p with components (h,y).
This cons cell is described by data_at Tsh t_list (h,y) p.
Separate from that, at address y, there is the representation
of the rest of the list, listrep hs y. The memory footprint
for listrep (h::hs) p contains the first cons cell at address p,
and the rest of the cons cells in the list starting at address y.
But if sigma is nil, then p is the null pointer, and the
memory footprint is empty (emp). The fact p=nullval is a pure
proposition (Coq Prop); we inject this into the assertion language
(Coq mpred) using the !! operator.
Because !!P (for a proposition P) does not specify any footprint
(whether empty or otherwise), we do not use the separating conjunction
× to combine it with emp; !!P has no spatial specification
to separate from. Instead, we use the ordinary conjunction &&.
Now, we want to prevent the simpl tactic from automatically
unfolding listrep. This is a design choice that you might make
differently, in which case, leave out the Arguments command.
Hint databases for spatial operators
 The saturate_local hint is a lemma that extracts pure propositional facts from a spatial fact.
 The valid_pointer hint is a lemma that extracts a
validpointer fact from a spatial lemma.
Lemma data_at_isptr_example1:
∀ (h y p : val) ,
data_at Tsh t_list (h,y) p  !! isptr p.
Proof.
intros.
∀ (h y p : val) ,
data_at Tsh t_list (h,y) p  !! isptr p.
Proof.
intros.
isptr p means p is a nonnull pointer, not NULL or Vundef
or a floatingpoint number:
Print isptr.
(* = fun v : val => match v with Vptr _ _ => True  _ => False end *)
(* = fun v : val => match v with Vptr _ _ => True  _ => False end *)
The goal solves automatically, using entailer!
entailer!.
Qed.
Lemma data_at_isptr_example2:
∀ (h y p : val) ,
data_at Tsh t_list (h,y) p  !! isptr p.
Proof.
intros.
Qed.
Lemma data_at_isptr_example2:
∀ (h y p : val) ,
data_at Tsh t_list (h,y) p  !! isptr p.
Proof.
intros.
Let's look more closely at how entailer! solves this goal.
First, it finds all the pure propositions Prop that it can deduce from
the mpred conjuncts on the lefthand side, and puts them above the line.
saturate_local.
The saturate_local tactic uses a Hint database (also called
saturate_local) to look up the individual conjuncts on the lefthand side
(this particular entailment has just one conjunct).
Print HintDb saturate_local.
In this case, the new propositions above the line are labeled H and H_{0}. Next, if the proof goal has just a proposition !!P on the right,
entailer! throws away the lefthandside and tries to prove P.
(This is rather aggressive, and can sometimes lose information, that is,
sometimes entailer! will turn a provable goal into an unprovable goal.)
apply prop_right.
It happens that field_compatible _ _ p implies isptr p,
Check field_compatible_isptr.
(* : forall (t : type) (path : list gfield) (p : val),
field_compatible t path p > isptr p *)
(* : forall (t : type) (path : list gfield) (p : val),
field_compatible t path p > isptr p *)
So therefore, field_compatible_isptr solves the goal.
eapply field_compatible_isptr; eauto.
Now you have some insight into how entailer! works.
Qed.
But when you define a new spatial predicate mpred such as listrep,
the saturate_local tactic does not know how to deduce Prop facts
from the listrep conjunct:
Lemma listrep_facts_example:
∀ sigma p,
listrep sigma p  !! (isptr p ∨ p=nullval).
Proof.
intros.
entailer!.
∀ sigma p,
listrep sigma p  !! (isptr p ∨ p=nullval).
Proof.
intros.
entailer!.
Here, entailer! threw away the lefthandside and left an unprovable goal.
Let's see why.
Abort.
Lemma listrep_facts_example:
∀ sigma p,
listrep sigma p  !! (isptr p ∨ p=nullval).
Proof.
intros.
Lemma listrep_facts_example:
∀ sigma p,
listrep sigma p  !! (isptr p ∨ p=nullval).
Proof.
intros.
First entailer! would use saturate_local to see (from the Hint database)
what can be deduced from listrep sigma p.
saturate_local.
But saturate_local did not add anything above the line. That's because
there's no Hint in the Hint database for listrep.
Therefore we must add one. The conventional name for such a lemma
is f_local_facts, if your new predicate is named f.
Abort.
Lemma listrep_local_facts:
∀ sigma p,
listrep sigma p 
!! (is_pointer_or_null p ∧ (p=nullval ↔ sigma=nil)).
Lemma listrep_local_facts:
∀ sigma p,
listrep sigma p 
!! (is_pointer_or_null p ∧ (p=nullval ↔ sigma=nil)).
For each spatial predicate Definition f(_): mpred,
there should be one "local fact", a lemma of the form
f(_)  !! _. On the right hand side, put all the propositions
you can derive from f(_). In this case, we know:
 p is either a pointer or null (it's never Vundef, or Vfloat, or a nonzero Vint).
 p is null, if and only if sigma is nil.
Proof.
intros.
intros.
We will prove this entailment by induction on sigma
revert p; induction sigma; intros p.


In the base case, sigma is nil. We can unfold the definition
of listrep to see what that means.
Now we have an entailment with a proposition p=nullval on the left.
To move that proposition above the line, we could do Intros, but
it's easier just to call on entailer! to see how it can simplify (and perhaps
partially solve) this entailment goal:
entailer!.
(* The entailer! has left an ordinary proposition, which is easy to solve. *)
split; auto.

(* The entailer! has left an ordinary proposition, which is easy to solve. *)
split; auto.

In the inductive case, we can again unfold the definition
of listrep (a::sigma); but then it's good to fold listrep sigma.
Replace the semicolon ; with a period in the next line, to see why.
Warning! Sometimes entailer! is too aggressive. If we use it
here, it will throw away the lefthand side because it doesn't
understand how to look inside an EXistential quantitier. The
exclamation point ! is a warning that entailer! can turn a
provable goal into an unprovable goal. Uncomment the next line
and see what happens. Then put the comment marks back.
(* entailer!. *)
The preferred way to handle EX y:t on the lefthandside of an
entailment is to use Intros y. Uncomment this to try it out, then
put the comment marks back.
(* Intros y. *)
A less agressive entailmentreducer is entailer without the
exclamation point. This one never turns a provable goal into an
unprovable goal. Here it will Intro the EXbound variable y.
entailer.
Should you use entailer! or entailer in ordinary proofs?
Usually entailer! is best: it's faster, and it does more work for you.
Only if you find that entailer! has gone into a dead end, should
you use entailer instead.
Here it is safe to use entailer!
entailer!.
Notice that entailer! has put several facts above the line:
field_compatible t_list [] p and value_fits t_list (a,y) come from the
saturate_local hint database, from the data_at conjunct; and
is_pointer_or_null y and y=nullval ↔ sigma=[] come from the
the listrep conjunct, using the induction hypothesis IHsigma.
Now, let's split the goal and take the two cases separately.
split; intro.
+
clear  H H_{2}.
subst p.
+
clear  H H_{2}.
subst p.
It happens that field_compatible _ _ p implies isptr p,
Check field_compatible_isptr.
(* : forall (t : type) (path : list gfield) (p : val),
field_compatible t path p > isptr p *)
(* : forall (t : type) (path : list gfield) (p : val),
field_compatible t path p > isptr p *)
The predicate isptr excludes the null pointer,
Print isptr.
(* = fun v : val => match v with Vptr _ _ => True  _ => False end *)
Print nullval.
(* = if Archi.ptr64 then Vlong Int64.zero else Vint Int.zero *)
(* = fun v : val => match v with Vptr _ _ => True  _ => False end *)
Print nullval.
(* = if Archi.ptr64 then Vlong Int64.zero else Vint Int.zero *)
Therefore H is a contradiction. We can proceed with,
Check field_compatible_nullval.
(* = forall (CS : compspecs) (t : type) (f : list gfield) (P : Type),
field_compatible t f nullval > P *)
eapply field_compatible_nullval; eauto.
+ (*The case a::sigma=[] → p=nullval is easy, by inversion: *)
inversion H_{2}.
Qed.
(* = forall (CS : compspecs) (t : type) (f : list gfield) (P : Type),
field_compatible t f nullval > P *)
eapply field_compatible_nullval; eauto.
+ (*The case a::sigma=[] → p=nullval is easy, by inversion: *)
inversion H_{2}.
Qed.
Now we add this lemma to the Hint database called saturate_local
#[export] Hint Resolve listrep_local_facts : saturate_local.
Valid pointers, and the valid_pointer Hint database
Lemma struct_list_valid_pointer_example:
∀ h y p,
data_at Tsh t_list (h,y) p  valid_pointer p.
Proof.
intros.
auto with valid_pointer.
Qed.
∀ h y p,
data_at Tsh t_list (h,y) p  valid_pointer p.
Proof.
intros.
auto with valid_pointer.
Qed.
However, the hint database does not know about userdefined
separationlogic predicates (mpred) such as listrep; for example:
Lemma listrep_valid_pointer_example:
∀ sigma p,
listrep sigma p  valid_pointer p.
Proof.
intros.
auto with valid_pointer.
∀ sigma p,
listrep sigma p  valid_pointer p.
Proof.
intros.
auto with valid_pointer.
Notice that auto with... did not solve the proof goal
Abort.
Therefore, we should prove the appropriate lemma, and add it to the
Hint database.
The main point is to unfold listrep.
Now we can prove it by case analysis on sigma; we don't even need
induction.
destruct sigma; simpl.


The nil case is easy:
hint.
entailer!.

entailer!.

The cons case
Intros y.
Now this solves using the Hint database valid_pointer, because the
data_at Tsh t_list (v,y) p on the left is enough to prove the goal.
auto with valid_pointer.
Qed.
Qed.
Now we add this lemma to the Hint database
#[export] Hint Resolve listrep_valid_pointer : valid_pointer.
Specification of the reverse function.
A funspec characterizes the precondition required for calling the function and the postcondition guaranteed by the function.
Definition reverse_spec : ident × funspec :=
DECLARE _reverse
WITH sigma : list val, p: val
PRE [ tptr t_list ]
PROP () PARAMS (p) SEP (listrep sigma p)
POST [ (tptr t_list) ]
EX q:val,
PROP () RETURN (q) SEP (listrep(rev sigma) q).
DECLARE _reverse
WITH sigma : list val, p: val
PRE [ tptr t_list ]
PROP () PARAMS (p) SEP (listrep sigma p)
POST [ (tptr t_list) ]
EX q:val,
PROP () RETURN (q) SEP (listrep(rev sigma) q).
 The WITH clause says, there is a value sigma: list val and a value p: val, visible in both the precondition and the postcondition.
 The PREcondition says,
 There is one functionparameter, whose C type is "pointer to struct list"
 PARAMS: The parameter contains the Coq value p;
 SEP: in memory at address p there is a linked list representing sigma.
 The POSTcondition says,
 the function returns a value whose C type is "pointer to struct list"; and
 there exists a value q: val, such that
 RETURN: the function's return value is q
 SEP: in memory at address q there is a linked list representing rev sigma.
Proof of the reverse function
The start_function tactic "opens up" a semax_body
proof goal into a Hoare triple.
start_function.
As usual, the current assertion (precondition) is derived from the PRE
clause of the function specification, reverse_spec, and the current command
w=0; ...more... is the function body of f_reverse.
The first statement (command) in the functionbody is the assignment
statement w=NULL;, where NULL is a C #define that exands to
"cast 0 to voidpointer", (void × )0, here uglyprinted as
(tptr tvoid)(0). To apply the separationlogic assignment rule to
this command, simply use the tactic forward :
forward. (* w = NULL; *)
The new semax judgment is for the rest of the function body after
the command w=NULL. The precondition of this semax is actually the
postcondition of the w=NULL statement. It's much like the precondition
of w=NULL, but contains the additional LOCAL fact,
temp _w (Vint (Int.repr 0)), that is, the variable _w contains nullval.
We can view the Hoarelogic proof of this program as a "symbolic execution",
where the symbolic states are assertions. We can symbolically execute
the next command by saying forward again.
forward. (* v = p; *)
Examine the precondition, and notice that now we have the additional
fact, temp _v p.
We cannot take the next step using forward ...
Fail forward.
... because the next command is a while loop.
To prove a whileloop, you must supply a loop invariant,
such as
(EX s_{1} ... PROP(...)LOCAL(...)SEP(...).
The loop invariant
(EX s_{1} ... PROP(...)LOCAL(...)SEP(...).
forward_while
(EX s_{1}: list val, EX s_{2} : list val,
EX w: val, EX v: val,
PROP (sigma = rev s_{1} ++ s_{2})
LOCAL (temp _w w; temp _v v)
SEP (listrep s_{1} w; listrep s_{2} v)).
(EX s_{1}: list val, EX s_{2} : list val,
EX w: val, EX v: val,
PROP (sigma = rev s_{1} ++ s_{2})
LOCAL (temp _w w; temp _v v)
SEP (listrep s_{1} w; listrep s_{2} v)).
The forward_while tactic leaves four subgoals,
which we mark with  (the Coq "bullet")
 (* Prove that (current) precondition implies the loop invariant *)
hint.
hint.
On the lefthand side of this entailment is the precondition
(that we had already established by forward symbolic execution to this
point) for the entire whileloop. On the righthand side is the loop
invariant, that we just gave to the forward_while tactic. Because
the righthand side has four existentials, a good proof strategy is to
choose values for them, using the Exists tactic.
Now we have a quantifierfree proof goal; let us see whether entailer!
can solve some parts of it.
entailer!.
Indeed, the entailer! did a fine job. What's left is a property of our
userdefined listrep predicate: emp  listrep [] nullval.
Now that the userdefined predicate is unfolded, entailer! can solve
the residual entailment.
entailer!.
 (* Prove that loop invariant implies typechecking of loop condition *)
hint.
 (* Prove that loop invariant implies typechecking of loop condition *)
hint.
The second subgoal of forward_while is to prove that the looptest
condition can execute without crashing. Consider, for example,
the Clanguage while loop, while (a[i]>0) ..., where the value of i
might exceed the bounds of the array. Then this would be a
"buffer overrun", and is "undefined behavior" ("stuck") in the C semantics.
We must prove that, given the current precondition (in this case,
the loop invariant), the loop test is not "undefined behavior."
This proof goal takes the form, currentprecondition  tc_expr Delta e,
where e is the looptest expression. You can pronounce tc_expr as
"typecheck expression", since the Verifiable C typechecker ensures
that such expressions are safe (sometimes with a subgoal for you to prove).
Fortunately, in most cases the entailer! solves tc_expr goals
completely automatically:
entailer!.
 (* Prove that loop body preserves invariant *)
hint.
 (* Prove that loop body preserves invariant *)
hint.
As usual in any Hoare logic (including Separation Logic), we need to prove
that the loop body preserves the loop invariant, more precisely,
The loop invariant was EX s_{1}:_, EX s_{2}:_, EX w:_, EX v:_, ..., and here
all the existentially quantified variables on the left side of the entailment
have been moved above the line: s_{1}, s_{2}: val and w,v: val.
The PROP part of the loop invariant was sigma = rev s_{1} ++ s_{2}, and
it has also been moved above the line, as hypothesis H.
So now we would like to do forwardsymbolic execution through
the four assignment statements in the loop body.
 {Inv /\ Test} body {Inv}
Fail forward.
But we cannot go forward through t=v→tail; because that would
require a SEP conjunct in the precondition of the form
data_at sh t_list (_,_) v, and there is no such conjunct. Actually,
there is such a conjunct, but it is hiding inside listrep s_{2} v.
That is, there is such a conjunct as long as s_{2} is not nil.
Let's do case analysis on s_{2}:
destruct s_{2} as [  h r].
+ (* s_{2}=nil *)
+ (* s_{2}=nil *)
Suppose s_{2}=nil. If we unfold listrep . . .
then we learn that v=nullval. To move this fact (or any proposition)
from the precondition to abovetheline, we use Intros:
Intros.
Now, above the line, we have v=nullval and isptr v;
this is a contradiction.
subst. contradiction.
+ (* s_{2}=h::r *)
+ (* s_{2}=h::r *)
Suppose s_{2}=h::r. We can unfold/fold the listrep conjunct for h::r;
if you don't remember why we do unfold/fold, then replace the semicolon
(between the fold and the unfold) with a period and see what happens.
By the definition of listrep, at address v there must exist a value y
and a list cell containing (h,y). So let us move y above the line:
Intros y.
Now we have the appropriate SEP conjuncts to be able to go forward
through the loop body
forward. (* t = v>tail *)
forward. (* v>tail = w; *)
forward. (* w = v; *)
forward. (* v = t; *)
forward. (* v>tail = w; *)
forward. (* w = v; *)
forward. (* v = t; *)
At the end of loop body; we must reestablish the loop invariant.
The lefthandside of this entailment is the current assertion (after
the loop body); the righthand side is simply our loop invariant.
(Unfortunately, the forward_while tactic has "uncurried" the existentials
into a single EX that binds a 4tuple.)
Since the proof goal is a complicatedlooking entailment, let's see
if entailer! can simplify it a bit:
entailer!.
Now, we can provide new values for s_{1},s_{2},w,v to instantiate the
four existentials; these are, respectively, h::s_{1},r,v,y.
Again, we have a complicatedlooking entailment; we ask entailer!
to reduce it some more.
entailer!.
× simpl. rewrite app_ass. auto.
× unfold listrep at 3; fold listrep.
Exists w. entailer!.
 (* after the loop *)
× simpl. rewrite app_ass. auto.
× unfold listrep at 3; fold listrep.
Exists w. entailer!.
 (* after the loop *)
As usual in any Hoare logic (including Separation Logic), the
postcondition of a whileloop is {Inv /\ not Test}, where Inv is the
loop invariant and Test is the loop test. Here, all the EXistentials
and PROPs of the loop invariant have been moved above the line as
s_{1},s_{2},w,v,HRE,H.
We can always go forward through a return statement:
forward. (* return w; *)
Now we must prove that the current assertion (after the whileloop)
entails the function postcondition. The lefthand side of this entailment
is what we had just before forward through the return;
the righthand side is the postcondition of reverse_spec,
after the local variables (etc.) have been simplified away. We must
demonstrate a pointer q (here it's called x) that satisfies the various
conditions. Here it's easy to find x, since it's constrained to be
equal to w:
Exists w; entailer!.
rewrite (proj1 H_{1}) by auto.
unfold listrep at 2; fold listrep.
entailer!.
rewrite < app_nil_end, rev_involutive.
auto.
Qed.
rewrite (proj1 H_{1}) by auto.
unfold listrep at 2; fold listrep.
entailer!.
rewrite < app_nil_end, rev_involutive.
auto.
Qed.
Why separation logic?
Fixpoint listrep (sigma: list val) (p: val) : mpred :=
match sigma with
 h::hs ⇒ EX y:val, data_at Tsh t_list (h,y) p × listrep hs y
 nil ⇒ !! (p = nullval) && emp
end. In the nonempty list case, the head element is described by
data_at Tsh t_list (h,y) p which is separated (by the separating conjunction * ) from the rest of the list
listrep hs y. This separation ensures that no address could be used more than once in a linked list. For example, considering a linked list of length at least 2,
listrep (a :: b :: l) x. We know that there must be two addresses y and z such that
data_at Tsh t_list (a,y) x ×
data_at Tsh t_list (b,z) y ×
listrep l z. The "separating conjunction" × tells us that x and y must be different! Formally, we can prove the following two lemmas:
Lemma listrep_len_ge2_fact: ∀ (a b x: val) (l: list val),
listrep (a :: b :: l) x 
EX y: val, EX z: val,
data_at Tsh t_list (a,y) x ×
data_at Tsh t_list (b,z) y ×
listrep l z.
Proof.
intros.
unfold listrep; fold listrep.
Intros y z.
Exists y z.
cancel.
Qed.
Lemma listrep_len_ge2_address_different: ∀ (a b x y z: val) (l: list val),
data_at Tsh t_list (a,y) x ×
data_at Tsh t_list (b,z) y ×
listrep l z 
!! (x ≠ y).
Proof.
intros.
listrep (a :: b :: l) x 
EX y: val, EX z: val,
data_at Tsh t_list (a,y) x ×
data_at Tsh t_list (b,z) y ×
listrep l z.
Proof.
intros.
unfold listrep; fold listrep.
Intros y z.
Exists y z.
cancel.
Qed.
Lemma listrep_len_ge2_address_different: ∀ (a b x y z: val) (l: list val),
data_at Tsh t_list (a,y) x ×
data_at Tsh t_list (b,z) y ×
listrep l z 
!! (x ≠ y).
Proof.
intros.
To prove that the addresses are different, we do case analysis first.
If x = y, we use the following theorem:
Check data_at_conflict.
(* : forall (sh : Share.t) (t : type) (v v' : reptype t) (p : val),
sepalg.nonidentity sh > 0 < sizeof t >
data_at sh t v p * data_at sh t v' p  FF *)
(* : forall (sh : Share.t) (t : type) (v v' : reptype t) (p : val),
sepalg.nonidentity sh > 0 < sizeof t >
data_at sh t v p * data_at sh t v' p  FF *)
It says that we can derives address antialiasing from the "separation"
defined by ×. If x ≠ y, the right side is already proved.
destruct (Val.eq x y); [ apply prop_right; auto].
subst x.
sep_apply (data_at_conflict Tsh t_list (a, y)).
+ auto.
+ entailer!.
Qed.
subst x.
sep_apply (data_at_conflict Tsh t_list (a, y)).
+ auto.
+ entailer!.
Qed.
Actually, even the property x≠y is not strong enough! We need to
know that x does not overlap with any field of record y,
for example (in C notation) x != &(y→tail) and &(x→tail) != y.
Otherwise, when storing into y→tail, we couldn't know that x→head
is not altered.
Without separation logic, we could still define listrep' using extra
clauses for address antialiasing. For example, a length3 linked list
listrep (a :: b :: c :: nil) x can be: exists y and z, such that (a, y)
is stored at x, (b, z) is stored at y, (c, nullval) is stored at z and
x, y and z are different from each other. In general, that assertion will
be quadratically long (as a function of the length of the linked list).
Then, to make sure x→head is not at the same address as y→tail, we'd need
even more assertions.
In our program correctness proof, we do (implicitly) use the fact that
different SEP clauses describe disjoint heaplets. Here is an
intermediate step in the proof of body_reverse.
(We rarely state intermediate proof goals such as this one.
We do it here to illustrate a point about separating conjunction.)
Lemma body_reverse_step: ∀
{Espec : OracleKind}
(sigma : list val)
(s_{1} : list val)
(h : val)
(r : list val)
(w v : val)
(HRE : isptr v)
(H : sigma = rev s_{1} ++ h :: r)
(y : val),
semax (func_tycontext f_reverse Vprog Gprog nil)
(PROP ( )
LOCAL (temp _t y; temp _w w; temp _v v)
SEP (listrep s_{1} w; data_at Tsh t_list (h, y) v; listrep r y))
(Ssequence
(Sassign
(Efield
(Ederef (Etempvar _v (tptr (Tstruct _list noattr)))
(Tstruct _list noattr))
_tail (tptr (Tstruct _list noattr)))
(Etempvar _w (tptr (Tstruct _list noattr))))
(Ssequence (Sset _w (Etempvar _v (tptr (Tstruct _list noattr))))
(Sset _v (Etempvar _t (tptr (Tstruct _list noattr))))))
(normal_ret_assert
(PROP ( )
LOCAL (temp _v y; temp _w v; temp _t y)
SEP (listrep s_{1} w; data_at Tsh t_list (h, w) v; listrep r y))).
Proof.
intros.
abbreviate_semax.
{Espec : OracleKind}
(sigma : list val)
(s_{1} : list val)
(h : val)
(r : list val)
(w v : val)
(HRE : isptr v)
(H : sigma = rev s_{1} ++ h :: r)
(y : val),
semax (func_tycontext f_reverse Vprog Gprog nil)
(PROP ( )
LOCAL (temp _t y; temp _w w; temp _v v)
SEP (listrep s_{1} w; data_at Tsh t_list (h, y) v; listrep r y))
(Ssequence
(Sassign
(Efield
(Ederef (Etempvar _v (tptr (Tstruct _list noattr)))
(Tstruct _list noattr))
_tail (tptr (Tstruct _list noattr)))
(Etempvar _w (tptr (Tstruct _list noattr))))
(Ssequence (Sset _w (Etempvar _v (tptr (Tstruct _list noattr))))
(Sset _v (Etempvar _t (tptr (Tstruct _list noattr))))))
(normal_ret_assert
(PROP ( )
LOCAL (temp _v y; temp _w v; temp _t y)
SEP (listrep s_{1} w; data_at Tsh t_list (h, w) v; listrep r y))).
Proof.
intros.
abbreviate_semax.
Now, our proof goal is:
semax Delta
(PROP ( )
LOCAL (temp _t y; temp _w w; temp _v v)
SEP (listrep s_{1} w; data_at Tsh t_list (h, y) v; listrep r y))
((_v → _tail) = _w; MORE_COMMANDS)
POSTCONDITION. The next forward tactic will do symbolic execution of v→tail = w.
semax Delta
(PROP ( )
LOCAL (temp _t y; temp _w w; temp _v v)
SEP (listrep s_{1} w; data_at Tsh t_list (h, y) v; listrep r y))
((_v → _tail) = _w; MORE_COMMANDS)
POSTCONDITION. The next forward tactic will do symbolic execution of v→tail = w.
forward. (* v>tail = w; *)
It turns the precondition into:
PROP ( )
LOCAL (temp _t y; temp _w w; temp _v v)
SEP (listrep s_{1} w; data_at Tsh t_list (h, w) v; listrep r y). It is no problem that the separating conjunct data_at Tsh t_list (h, y) v is turned into data_at Tsh t_list (h, w) v. But why weren't the other separating conjuncts like listrep s_{1} w affected?
Because they are separated! The separation ensures that address v is not used
in the linked list described by listrep s_{1} w.
PROP ( )
LOCAL (temp _t y; temp _w w; temp _v v)
SEP (listrep s_{1} w; data_at Tsh t_list (h, w) v; listrep r y). It is no problem that the separating conjunct data_at Tsh t_list (h, y) v is turned into data_at Tsh t_list (h, w) v. But why weren't the other separating conjuncts like listrep s_{1} w affected?
Abort.
When C programs manipulate pointer data structures (or slices of arrays),
address antialiasing plays an important role in their correctness proofs.
Separation logic is essential for reasoning about updates to these structures.
Verifiable C's SEP clause ensures separation between all its conjuncts.
(* 20220808 21:22 *)