Towards imperative modules: Reasoning about invariants and sharing of mutable state

Theoretical Computer Science

Volumn 365, Issue 1-2, 2006, Pages 143-168

  Naumann, David A ^a   Barnett, Mike ^b  

^a STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Alias control; Data abstraction; Object invariants; Program verification

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACTING; COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; ITERATIVE METHODS; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

ALIAS CONTROL; DATA ABSTRACTION; DOES TRANSGRESS; MUTABLE OBJECTS; MUTABLE STATE; PROGRAM VERIFICATION;

OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING;

EID: 33750236160     PISSN: 03043975     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tcs.2006.07.035     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. J. Aldrich, C. Chambers, Ownership domains: separating aliasing policy from mechanism, in: European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), 2004, pp. 1-25.
2. A.W. Appel, Foundational proof-carrying code, in: Proceedings of Logic in Computer Science (LICS), 2001, pp. 247-258.
3. Apt K.R., and Olderog E.-R. Verification of Sequential and Concurrent Programs. second ed. (1997), Springer, Berlin
4. A. Banerjee, D.A. Naumann, Representation independence, confinement and access control, in: ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), 2002, pp. 166-177.
5. Banerjee A., and Naumann D.A. Ownership confinement ensures representation independence for object-oriented programs. J. ACM 52 6 (2005) 894-960
6. Banerjee A., and Naumann D.A. Stack-based access control for secure information flow. J. Funct. Programming 15 2 (2005) 131-177 (special issue on Language Based Security)
7. A. Banerjee, D.A. Naumann, State based ownership, reentrance, and encapsulation, in: European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), 2005, pp. 387-411.
8. Barnett M., DeLine R., Fähndrich M., Leino K.R.M., and Schulte W. Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants. J. Object Technol. 3 6 (2004) 27-56 (special issue: ECOOP 2003 Workshop on Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs)
9. M. Barnett, K.R.M. Leino, W. Schulte, The Spec# programming system: an overview, in: G. Barthe, L. Burdy, M. Huisman, J.-L. Lanet, T. Muntean (Eds.), Construction and Analysis of Safe, Secure, and Interoperable Smart Devices, International Workshop (CASSIS 2004), Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3362, 2005, pp. 49-69.
10. M. Barnett, D.A. Naumann, Friends need a bit more: maintaining invariants over shared state, in: D. Kozen, C. Shankland, (Eds.), Mathematics of Program Construction, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3125, 2004, pp. 54-84.
11. B. Biering, L. Birkedal, N. Torp-Smith, BI-hyperdoctrines, higher-order separation logic, and abstraction, Technical Report ITU-TR-2005-69, IT University of Copenhagen, 2005.
12. G. Bierman, M. Parkinson, Separation logic and abstraction, in: ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), 2005, pp. 247-258.
13. L. Birkedal, N. Torp-Smith, H. Yang, Semantics of separation-logic typing and higher-order frame rules, in: IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), 2005, pp. 260-269.
14. C. Boyapati, R. Lee, M. Rinard, Ownership types for safe programming: preventing data races and deadlocks, in: Object-oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), 2002, pp. 211-230.
15. C. Boyapati, B. Liskov, L. Shrira, Ownership types for object encapsulation, in: ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), 2003, pp. 213-223.
16. Clarke D. Object ownership and containment, dissertation, Computer Science and Engineering (2001), University of New South Wales, Australia
17. D.G. Clarke, J. Noble, J.M. Potter, Simple ownership types for object containment, in: Knudsen, J.L. (Ed.), ECOOP 2001-Object Oriented Programming, 2001, pp. 53-76.
18. F. de Boer, C. Pierik, Computer-aided specification and verification of annotated object-oriented programs, in: B. Jacobs, A. Rensink (Eds.), Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems, 2002, pp. 163-177.
19. F.S. de Boer, A WP-calculus for OO, in: Proc. of Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structure (FoSSaCS), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1578, 1999, pp. 135-149.
20. R. DeLine, M. Fähndrich, Enforcing high-level protocols in low-level software, in: ACM Conference on Programming Languages Design and Implementation (PLDI), 2001, pp. 59-69.
21. Gamma E., Helm R., Johnson R., and Vlissides J. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software (1995), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
22. B. Jacobs, J. Kiniry, M. Warnier, Java program verification challenges, in: F. de Boer, M. Bonsangue, S. Graf, W.-P. de Roever (Eds.), Formal Methods for Components and Objects (FMCO 2002), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2852, Springer, 2003, pp. 202-219.
23. B. Jacobs, F. Piessens, K.R.M. Leino, W. Schulte, Safe concurrency for aggregate objects with invariants, in: B.K. Aichernig, B. Beckert, (Eds.), Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM), 2005, pp. 137-147.
24. Leavens G.T., Cheon Y., Clifton C., Ruby C., and Cok D.R. How the design of JML accommodates both runtime assertion checking and formal verification. In: de Boer F.S., Bonsangue M.M., Graf S., and de Roever W.-P. (Eds). Formal Methods for Components and Objects (FMCO 2002), Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 2852 (2003), Springer 262-284
25. K.R.M. Leino, P. Müller, Object invariants in dynamic contexts, in: European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), 2004, pp. 491-516.
26. K.R.M. Leino, P. Müller, Modular verification of static class invariants, in: Proceedings, Formal Methods, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3582, Springer, 2005, pp. 26-42.
27. Leino K.R.M., and Nelson G. Data abstraction and information hiding. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Systems 24 5 (2002) 491-553
28. Liskov B., and Guttag J. Abstraction and Specification in Program Development (1986), MIT Press, Cambrige, MA
29. A.R. Meyer, K. Sieber, Towards fully abstract semantics for local variables: preliminary report, in: Proceedings, Fifteenth Principles of Programming Language (POPL), 1988, pp. 191-203.
30. Meyer B. Object-oriented Software Construction. second ed. (1997), Prentice-Hall, New York
31. Mitchell J.C., and Plotkin G.D. Abstract types have existential type. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Systems 10 3 (1988) 470-502
32. Morrisett G., Crary K., Glew N., and Walker D. From system F to typed assembly language. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Systems 21 3 (1999) 528-569
33. P. Müller, Modular specification and verification of object-oriented programs, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2262, Springer, Berlin, 2002.
34. P. Müller, A. Poetzsch-Heffter, G. Leavens, Modular invariants for object structures, Technical Report 424, ETH Zürich, Chair of Software Engineering, 2003.
35. Naumann D.A. Soundness of data refinement for a higher order imperative language. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 278 1-2 (2002) 271-301
36. D.A. Naumann, Assertion-based encapsulation, object invariants and simulations, in: F.S. de Boer, M.M. Bonsangue, S. Graf, W.P. de Roever (Eds.), Post-proceedings, Formal Methods for Components and Objects (FMCO 2004), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3657, Springer, 2005, pp. 251-273.
37. Naumann D.A. Verifying a secure information flow analyzer. In: Hurd J., and Melham T. (Eds). 18th Internat. Conf. on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLS), Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 3603 (2005), Springer, Berlin 211-226
38. D.A. Naumann, M. Barnett, Towards imperative modules: reasoning about invariants and sharing of mutable state (extended abstract), in: IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), 2004, pp. 313-323.
39. P. O'Hearn, H. Yang, J. Reynolds, Separation and information hiding, in: ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), 2004, pp. 268-280.
40. O'Hearn P.W., and Tennent R.D. Algol-like Languages (Two volumes) (1997), Birkhäuser, Boston
41. M.J. Parkinson, Local reasoning for Java, Technical Report 654, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, dissertation, November 2005.
42. C. Pierik, Validation techniques for object-oriented proof outlines, dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht, 2006.
43. C. Pierik, D. Clarke, F.S. de Boer, Controlling object allocation using creation guards, in: Proceedings, Formal Methods, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3582, Springer, 2005, pp. 59-74.
44. C. Pierik, F.S. de Boer, A proof outline logic for object-oriented programming, Theoret. Comput. Sci., 2005, to appear.
45. B. Reus, Modular semantics and logics of classes, in: M. Baaz, J.A. Makowsky (Eds.), Computer Science Logic (CSL), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2803, Springer, 2003, pp. 456-469.
46. J.C. Reynolds, Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures, in: IEEE Symp. on Logics in Computer Science, 2002, pp. 55-74.
47. Skalka C., and Smith S. Static use-based object confinement. Springer Internat. J. Inform. Secur. 4 1-2 (2005)