Proof-Carrying Code (PCC) is a general framework for verifying the safety properties of machine-language programs. PCC proofs are usually written in a logic extended with language-specific typing rules. In Foundational Proof-Carrying Code (FPCC), on the other hand, proofs are constructed and verified using strictly the foundations of mathematical logic, with no type-specific axioms. FPCC is more flexible and secure because it is not tied to any particular type system and it has a smaller trusted base. Foundational proofs, however, are much harder to construct. Previous efforts on FPCC all required building sophisticated semantic models for types. In this paper, we present a syntactic approach to FPCC that avoids the difficulties of previous work. Under our new scheme, the foundational proof for a typed machine program simply consists of the typing derivation plus the formalized syntactic soundness proof for the underlying type system. We give a translation from a typed assembly language into FPCC and demonstrate the advantages of our new system via an implementation in the Coq proof assistant. 1.

Proof-carrying code (PCC) is a framework for mechanically verifying the safety of machine language programs. A program that is successfully verified by a PCC system is guaranteed to be safe to execute, but this safety guarantee is contingent upon the correctness of various trusted components. For instance, in traditional PCC systems the trusted computing base includes a large set of low-level typing rules. Foundational PCC systems seek to minimize the size of the trusted computing base. In particular, they eliminate the need to trust complex, low-level type systems by providing machine-checkable proofs of type soundness for real machine languages. In this thesis, I demonstrate the use of logical relations for proving the soundness of type systems for mutable state. Specifically, I focus on type systems that ensure the safe allocation, update, and reuse of memory. For each type in the language, I define logical relations that explain the meaning of the type in terms of the oper-ational semantics of the language. Using this model of types, I prove each typing rule as a lemma. The major contribution is a model of System F with general references — that is, mutable cells that can hold values of any closed type including other references, functions, recursive types, and impredicative quantified types. The model is based on ideas from both possible worlds and the indexed model of Appel and McAllester. I show how the model of mutable references is encoded in higher-order logic. I also show how to construct an indexed possible-worlds model for a von Neumann machine. The latter is used in the Princeton Foundational PCC system to prove type safety for a full-fledged low-level typed assembly language. Finally, I present a semantic model for a region calculus that supports type-invariant references as well as memory reuse. iii

Typed assembly languages provide a way to generate machinecheckable safety proofs for machine-language programs. But the soundness proofs of most existing typed assembly languages are hand-written and cannot be machine-checked, which is worrisome for such large calculi. We have designed and implemented a low-level typed assembly language (LTAL) with a semantic model and established its soundness from the model. Compared to existing typed assembly languages, LTAL is more scalable and more secure; it has no macro instructions that hinder low-level optimizations such as instruction scheduling; its type constructors are expressive enough to capture dataflow information, support the compiler's choice of data representations and permit typed position-independent code; and its type-checking algorithm is completely syntax-directed.

We present a unified approach to type checking and property checking for low-level code. Type checking for low-level code is challenging because type safety often depends on complex, programspecific invariants that are difficult for traditional type checkers to express. Conversely, property checking for low-level code is challenging because it is difficult to write concise specifications that distinguish between locations in an untyped program’s heap. We address both problems simultaneously by implementing a type checker for low-level code as part of our property checker. We present a low-level formalization of a C program’s heap and its types that can be checked with an SMT solver, and we provide a decision procedure for checking type safety. Our type system is flexible enough to support a combination of nominal and structural subtyping for C, on a per-structure basis. We discuss several case studies that demonstrate the ability of this tool to express and check complex type invariants in low-level C code, including several small Windows device drivers.

Abstract. In this paper, we introduce a Foundational Proof-Carrying Code (FPCC) framework for constructing certified code packages from typed assembly language that will interface with a similarly certified runtime system. Our framework permits the typed assembly language to have a “foreign function ” interface, in which stubs, initially provided when the program is being written, are eventually compiled and linked to code that may have been written in a language with a different type system, or even certified directly in the FPCC logic using a proof assistant. We have increased the potential scalability and flexibility of our FPCC system by providing a way to integrate programs compiled from different source type systems. In the process, we are explicitly manipulating the interface between Hoare logic and a syntactic type system. 1

Proof checkers for proof-carrying code (and similar systems) can su#er from two problems: huge proof witnesses and untrustworthy proof rules. No previous design has addressed both of these problems simultaneously. We show the theory, design, and implementation of a proof-checker that permits small proof witnesses and machine-checkable proofs of the soundness of the system.

We present a semantic model of the polymorphic lambda calculus augmented with a higher-order store, allowing the storage of values of any type, including impredicative quantified types, mutable references, recursive types, and functions. Our model provides the first denotational semantics for a type system with updatable references to values of impredicative quantified types. The central idea behind our semantics is that instead of tracking the exact type of a mutable reference in a possible world our model keeps track of the approximate type. While high-level languages like ML and Java do not themselves support storage of impredicative existential packages in mutable cells, this feature is essential when representing ML function closures, that is, in a target language for typed closure conversion of ML programs.

Typed Assembly Languages (TALs) can be used to validate the safety of assembly-language programs. However, typing rules are usually trusted as axioms.

Typed Assembly Languages (TALs) are used to validate the safety of machine-language programs. The Foundational Proof-Carrying Code project seeks to verify the soundness of TALs using the smallest possible set of axioms—the axioms of a suitably expressive logic plus a specification of machine semantics. This paper proposes general semantic foundations that permit modular proofs of the soundness of TALs. These semantic foundations include Typed Machine Language (TML), a type theory for specifying properties of low-level data with powerful and orthogonal type constructors, and Lc, a compositional logic for specifying properties of machine instructions with simplified reasoning about unstructured control flow. Both of these components, whose semantics we specify using higher-order logic, are useful for proving the soundness of TALs. We demonstrate this by using TML and Lc to verify the soundness of a low-level, typed assembly language, LTAL, which is the target of our core-ML-to-sparc compiler. To prove the soundness of the TML type system we have successfully applied a new approach, that of step-indexed logical relations. This approach provides the first semantic model for a type system with updatable references to values of impredicative quantified types. Both impredicative polymorphism and mutable references are essential when representing function closures in compilers with typed closure conversion, or when compiling objects to simpler typed primitives.

We define a Concurrent Separation Logic with first-class locks and threads for the C language, and prove its soundness in Coq with respect to a compilable operataional semantics. We define the language Concurrent C minor, an extension of the C minor language of Leroy. C minor was designed as the highest-level intermediate language in the CompCert certified ANSI C compiler, and we add to it lock, unlock, and fork statements to make Concurrent C minor, giving it a standard Pthreads style of concurrency. We define a Concurrent Separation Logic for Concurrent C minor, which extends the original Concurrent Separation Logic of O’Hearn to handle firstclass locks and threads. We then prove the soundness of the logic with respect to the operational semantics of the language. First, we define an erased concurrent operational semantics for Concurrent C minor that is a reasonable abstraction for concurrent execution on a real machine. Second, we define