Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byAntonia Beardall Modified over 3 years ago

1
Static Contract Checking for Haskell Dana N. Xu University of Cambridge Ph.D. Supervisor: Simon Peyton Jones Microsoft Research Cambridge

2
From Types to Contracts head [] = BAD head (x:xs) = x head :: [a] -> a …(head 1)… head {xs | not (null xs)} -> {r | True} …(head [])… Bug! Contract (arbitrary Haskell boolean expression) Type null :: [a] -> Bool null [] = True null (x:xs) = False BAD means should not happen: crash

3
What we want Adapt Findler-Felleisens ideas for dynamic (high-order) contract checking. Do static contract checking for a lazy language. Contract Haskell function Glasgow Haskell Compiler (GHC) Where the bug is Why it is a bug

4
Three Outcomes (1) Definitely Safe (no crash, but may loop) (2) Definite Bug (definitely crashes) (3) Possible Bug

5
5 Sorting sorted [] = True sorted (x:[]) = True sorted (x:y:xs) = x <= y && sorted (y : xs) insert :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int] insert {i | True} -> {xs | sorted xs} -> {r | sorted r} merge :: [Int] -> [Int] -> [Int] merge {xs | sorted xs}->{ys | sorted ys}->{r | sorted r} bubbleHelper :: [Int] -> ([Int], Bool) bubbleHelper {xs | True} -> {r | not (snd r) ==> sorted (fst r)} insertsort, mergesort, bubblesort {xs | True} -> {r | sorted r} (==>) True x = x (==>) False x = True

6
AVL Tree balanced :: AVL -> Bool balanced L = True balanced (N t u) = balanced t && balanced u && abs (depth t - depth u) <= 1 data AVL = L | N Int AVL AVL insert, delete :: AVL -> Int -> AVL insert {x | balanced x} -> {y | True} -> {r | notLeaf r && balanced r && 0 <= depth r - depth x && depth r - depth x <= 1 } delete {x | balanced x} -> {y | True} -> {r | balanced r && 0 <= depth x - depth r && depth x - depth r <= 1} (&&) True x = x (&&) False x = False

7
The Contract Idea for Higher-Order Function [Findler/Felleisen] f1 :: (Int -> Int) -> Int f1 ({x | x > 0} -> {y | y >= 0}) -> {r | r >= 0} f1 g = (g 0) - 1 f2 :: {r | True} f2 = f1 (\x -> x – 5) Blame f1 : f1 calls g with wrong argument f1 does not satisfy its post-condition Blame f2 : f2 calls f1 with wrong argument f3 :: {r | True} f3 = f1 (\x -> x – 1) f3 is Ok. Cant tell at run-time

8
What is a Contract? Contract t ::= {x | p} Predicate Contract | x:t 1 -> t 2 Dependent Function Contract | (t 1, t 2 ) Tuple Contract | Any Polymorphic Any Contract 3 { x | x > 0 } (3, []) Any 3 { x | True } (3, []) (Ok, {ys | null ys}) Ok = {x | True} arbitrary Haskell boolean expression inc x:{x | x>0} -> {y | y == x + 1} Precondition Postcondition Postcondition can mention argument arbitrary constructor

9
What we want? Check f If main Ok, then the whole program cannot crash. If not, show which function to blame and why. Beauty of Contract Checking

10
Define e t Construct e t (e ensures t) Main Theorem e t iff e t is crash-free (related to Blume&McAllester:JFP06) some e Symbolically simplify (e t) See if BAD is syntactically in e. If yes, DONE ; else give BLAME [POPL10] ESC/Haskell [Haskell06]

11
e {x | p} = case p[e/x] of True -> e False -> BAD e x:t 1 -> t 2 = v. (e (v t 1 )) t 2 [(v t 1 )/x] e (t 1, t 2 ) = case e of (e 1, e 2 ) -> (e 1 t 1, e 2 t 2 ) e Any = UNR Wrappers and ( pronounced ensures pronounced requires) related to [Findler-Felleisen:ICFP02]

12
Wrappers and ( pronounced ensures pronounced requires) related to [Findler-Felleisen:ICFP02] e {x | p} = case p[e/x] of True -> e False -> UNR e x:t 1 -> t 2 = v. (e (v t 1 )) t 2 [v t 1 /x] e (t 1, t 2 ) = case e of (e 1, e 2 ) -> (e 1 t 1, e 2 t 2 ) e Any = BAD

13
Some Interesting Details Practice Theory Adding tags, e.g. BAD f Achieves precise blaming More tags to trace functions to blame Achieves the same goal of [Meunier:POPL06] Using a theorem prover Counter-example guided unrolling Contracts that loop Contracts that crash Lovely Lemmas

15
Summary Static contract checking is a fertile and under-researched area Distinctive features of our approach – Full Haskell in contracts; absolutely crucial – Declarative specification of satisfies – Nice theory (with some very tricky corners) – Static proofs – Modular Checking – Compiler as theorem prover

16
After Ph.D. Postdoc project in 2009: probabilistic contract for component base design [ATVA2010] Current project at Xavier Leroys team (INRIA) - a verifying compiler: 1. Apply the idea to OCaml compiler by allowing both static and dynamic contract checking 2. Connect with Coq to verify more programs statically. 3. Use Coq to prove the correctness of the framework. 4. Apply new ideas back to Haskell (e.g. GHC).

17
Static and Dynamic Program with Specifications Run time error attributes blame to the right place Compile time error attributes blame to the right place Dynamic checking Static checking No blaming means Program cannot crashs Or, more plausibly: If you guarantee that f t, then the program cannot crash

19
What exactly does it mean to say that et e satisfies contract t? e t

20
When does e satisfy a contract? Brief, declarative… inc x:{x | x > 0} -> {y | y == x + 1} Precondition Postcondition Postcondition can mention argument

21
When does e satisfy a contract? The delicate one is the predicate contract. Our decision: e {x | p} iff e is crash-free crash-free Question: What expression is crash-free ? crash-free e is crash-free iff no blameless context can make e crash e is crash-free iff C. BAD s C. C[e] * BAD

22
Crash-free Examples Lemma: e is syntactically safe => e is crash-free. Crash-free? \x -> x YES (1, True)YES (1, BAD) NO \x -> if x > 0 then x else (BAD, x) NO \x -> if x*x >= 0 then x + 1 else BAD Hmm.. YES

23
When does e satisfy a contract? See the paper for … Why e must be crash-free to satisfy predicate contract? Why divergent expression satisfies all contract? What if contract diverges (i.e. p diverges)? What if contract crashes (i.e. p crashes)?

24
How can we mechanically check that et e satisfies contract t? e t ???

25
Example head { xs | not (null xs) } -> Ok = \v. head (v { xs | not (null xs)}) Ok e Ok = e = \v. head (v { xs | not (null xs)}) = \v. head (case not (null v) of True -> v False -> UNR) head:: [a] -> a head [] = BAD head (x:xs) = x

26
\v. head (case not (null v) of True -> v False -> UNR) null :: [a] -> Bool null [] = True null (x:xs) = False not :: Bool -> Bool not True = False not False = True = \v. head (case v of [] -> UNR (p:ps) -> p) Now inline not and null Now inline head = \v. case v of [] -> UNR (p:ps) -> p head:: [a] -> a head [] = BAD head (x:xs) = x So head [] fails with UNR, not BAD, blaming the caller

27
Static and Dynamic Program with Specifications Run time error attributes blame to the right place Compile time error attributes blame to the right place Dynamic checking Static checking [Findler, Felleisen, Blume, Hinze, Loh, Runciman, Chitil] [Flanaghan, Mitchell, Pottier]

Similar presentations

OK

From Hoare Logic to Matching Logic Reachability Grigore Rosu and Andrei Stefanescu University of Illinois, USA.

From Hoare Logic to Matching Logic Reachability Grigore Rosu and Andrei Stefanescu University of Illinois, USA.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on switching network connection Ppt on power line communication broadband Ppt on flexible exchange rate Ppt on unity in diversity logo Ppt on international space station Ppt on different types of computer softwares downloads Ppt on second law of thermodynamics and entropy Ppt on oracle bi publisher Ppt on nelson mandela life Ppt on file system in unix