Message passing is a useful abstraction for implementing concurrent programs. For real-world systems, however, it is often combined with other programming and concurrency paradigms, such as higher-order functions, mutable state, shared-memory concurrency, and locks. We present Actris: a logic for proving functional correctness of programs that use a combination of the aforementioned features. Actris combines the power of modern concurrent separation logics with a first-class protocol mechanism—based on session types— for reasoning about message passing in the presence of other concurrency paradigms. We show that Actris provides a suitable level of abstraction by proving functional correctness of a variety of examples, including a channel-based merge sort, a channel-based load-balancing mapper, and a variant of the map-reduce model, using concise specifications. While Actris was already presented in a conference paper (POPL’20), this paper expands the prior presentation significantly. Moreover, it extends Actris to Actris 2.0 with a notion of subprotocols—based on session-type subtyping—that permits additional flexibility when composing channel endpoints, and that takes full advantage of the asynchronous semantics of message passing in Actris. Soundness of Actris 2.0 is proven using a model of its protocol mechanism in the Iris framework. We have mechanised the theory of Actris, together with custom tactics, as well as all examples in the paper, in the Coq proof assistant.

In this paper, we provide an overview of how Safe-by-Design is conceived and applied in practice in a large number of engineering disciplines. We discuss the differences, commonalities, and possibilities for mutual learning found in those practices and identify several ways of putting those disciplinary outlooks in perspective. The considered engineering disciplines in the order of historically grown technologies are construction engineering, chemical engineering, aerospace engineering, urban engineering, software engineering, bio-engineering, nano-engineering, and finally cyber space engineering. Each discipline is briefly introduced, the technology at issue is described, the relevant or dominant hazards are examined, the social challenge(s) are observed, and the relevant developments in the field are described. Within each discipline the risk management strategies, the design principles promoting safety or safety awareness, and associated methods or tools are discussed. Possible dilemmas that the designers in the discipline face are highlighted. Each discipline is concluded by discussing the opportunities and bottlenecks in addressing safety. Commonalities and differences between the engineering disciplines are investigated, specifically on the design strategies for which empirical data have been collected. We argue that Safe-by-Design is best considered as a specific elaboration of Responsible Research and Innovation, with an explicit focus on safety in relation to other important values in engineering such as well-being, sustainability, equity, and affordability. Safe-by-Design provides for an intellectual venue where social science and the humanities (SSH) collaborate on technological developments and innovation by helping to proactively incorporate safety considerations into engineering practices, while navigating between the extremes of technological optimism and disproportionate precaution. As such, Safe-by-Design is also a practical tool for policymakers and risk assessors that helps shape governance arrangements for accommodating and incentivizing safety, while fully acknowledging uncertainty.

Session types- A family of type systems for message-passing concurrency-have been subject to many extensions, where each extension comes with a separate proof of type safety. These extensions cannot be readily combined, and their proofs of type safety are generally not machine checked, making their correctness less trustworthy. We overcome these shortcomings with a semantic approach to binary asynchronous affine session types, by developing a logical relations model in Coq using the Iris program logic. We demonstrate the power of our approach by combining various forms of polymorphism and recursion, asynchronous subtyping, references, and locks/mutexes. As an additional benefit of the semantic approach, we demonstrate how to manually prove typing judgements of racy, but safe, programs that cannot be type checked using only the rules of the type system.

To avoid compilation errors it is desirable to verify that a compiler is type correct-i.e., given well-typed source code, it always outputs well-typed target code. This can be done intrinsically by implementing it as a function in a dependently typed programming language, such as Agda. This function manipulates data types of well-typed source and target programs, and is therefore type correct by construction. A key challenge in implementing an intrinsically typed compiler is the representation of labels in bytecode. Because label names are global, bytecode typing appears to be inherently a non-compositional, whole-program property. The individual operations of the compiler do not preserve this property, which requires the programmer to reason about labels, which spoils the compiler definition with proof terms. In this paper, we address this problem using a new nameless and co-contextual representation of typed global label binding, which is compositional. Our key idea is to use linearity to ensure that all labels are defined exactly once. To write concise compilers that manipulate programs in our representation, we develop a linear, dependently typed, shallowly embedded language in Agda, based on separation logic. We show that this language enables the concise specification and implementation of intrinsically typed operations on bytecode, culminating in an intrinsically typed compiler for a language with structured control-flow.

Non-interference is a program property that ensures the absence of information leaks. In the context of programming languages, there exist two common approaches for establishing non-interference: type systems and program logics. Type systems provide strong automation (by means of type checking), but they are inherently restrictive in the kind of programs they support. Program logics support challenging programs, but they typically require significant human assistance, and cannot handle modules or higher-order programs.To connect these two approaches, we present SeLoC - a separation logic for non-interference, on top of which we build a type system using the technique of logical relations. By building a type system on top of separation logic, we can compositionally verify programs that consist of typed and untyped parts. The former parts are verified through type checking, while the latter parts are verified through manual proof.The core technical contribution of SeLoC is a relational form of weakest preconditions that can track information flow using separation logic resources. SeLoC is fully machine-checked, and built on top of the Iris framework for concurrent separation logic in Coq. The integration with Iris provides seamless support for fine-grained concurrency, which was beyond the reach of prior type systems and program logics for non-interference.

The metatheory of Scala's core type system - the Dependent Object Types (DOT) calculus - is hard to extend, like the metatheory of other type systems combining subtyping and dependent types. Soundness of important Scala features therefore remains an open problem in theory and in practice. To address some of these problems, we use a semantics-first approach to develop a logical relations model for a new version of DOT, called guarded DOT (gDOT). Our logical relations model makes use of an abstract form of step-indexing, as supported by the Iris framework, to model various forms of recursion in gDOT. To demonstrate the expressiveness of gDOT, we show that it handles Scala examples that could not be handled by previous versions of DOT, and prove using our logical relations model that gDOT provides the desired data abstraction. The gDOT type system, its semantic model, its soundness proofs, and all examples in the paper have been mechanized in Coq.

There is a large gap between the specification of type systems and the implementation of their type checkers, which impedes reasoning about the soundness of the type checker with respect to the specification. A vision to close this gap is to automatically obtain type checkers from declarative programming language specifications. This moves the burden of proving correctness from a case-by-case basis for concrete languages to a single correctness proof for the specification language. This vision is obstructed by an aspect common to all programming languages: name resolution. Naming and scoping are pervasive and complex aspects of the static semantics of programming languages. Implementations of type checkers for languages with name binding features such as modules, imports, classes, and inheritance interleave collection of binding information (i.e., declarations, scoping structure, and imports) and querying that information. This requires scheduling those two aspects in such a way that query answers are stable-i.e., they are computed only after all relevant binding structure has been collected. Type checkers for concrete languages accomplish stability using language-specific knowledge about the type system. In this paper we give a language-independent characterization of necessary and sufficient conditions to guarantee stability of name and type queries during type checking in terms of critical edges in an incomplete scope graph. We use critical edges to give a formal small-step operational semantics to a declarative specification language for type systems, that achieves soundness by delaying queries that may depend on missing information. This yields type checkers for the specified languages that are sound by construction-i.e., they schedule queries so that the answers are stable, and only accept programs that are name-and type-correct according to the declarative language specification. We implement this approach, and evaluate it against specifications of a small module and record language, as well as subsets of Java and Scala.

Message passing is a useful abstraction to implement concurrent programs. For real-world systems, however, it is often combined with other programming and concurrency paradigms, such as higher-order functions, mutable state, shared-memory concurrency, and locks. We present Actris: a logic for proving functional correctness of programs that use a combination of the aforementioned features. Actris combines the power of modern concurrent separation logics with a first-class protocol mechanism - based on session types - for reasoning about message passing in the presence of other concurrency paradigms. We show that Actris provides a suitable level of abstraction by proving functional correctness of a variety of examples, including a distributed merge sort, a distributed load-balancing mapper, and a variant of the map-reduce model, using relatively simple specifications. Soundness of Actris is proved using a model of its protocol mechanism in the Iris framework. We mechanised the theory of Actris, together with tactics for symbolic execution of programs, as well as all examples in the paper, in the Coq proof assistant.

Concurrent separation logics (CSLs) have come of age, and with age they have accumulated a great deal of complexity. Previous work on the Iris logic attempted to reduce the complex logical mechanisms of modern CSLs to two orthogonal concepts: partial commutative monoids (PCMs) and invariants. However, the realization of these concepts in Iris still bakes in several complex mechanisms—such as weakest preconditions and mask-changing view shifts—as primitive notions. In this paper, we take the Iris story to its (so to speak) logical conclusion, applying the reductionist methodology of Iris to Iris itself. Specifically, we define a small, resourceful base logic, which distills the essence of Iris: it comprises only the assertion layer of vanilla separation logic, plus a handful of simple modalities. We then show how the much fancier logical mechanisms of Iris—in particular, its entire program specification layer—can be understood as merely derived forms in our base logic. This approach helps to explain the meaning of Iris’s program specifications at a much higher level of abstraction than was previously possible. We also show that the step-indexed “later” modality of Iris is an essential source of complexity, in that removing it leads to a logical inconsistency. All our results are fully formalized in the Coq proof assistant.