Abstraction and Approximation via Abstract Interpretation a systematic

Abstraction and Approximation via Abstract Interpretation: a systematic approach to program analysis and verification Giorgio Levi Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa levi@di. unipi. it http: //www. di. unipi. it/~levi. html 1

Abstraction and approximation l two relevant concepts in several areas of computer science (and engineering) – to reason about complex systems – to make reasoning computationally feasible 2

Abstract Interpretation (Cousot & Cousot, POPL 77 & 79) l a 20 -years old technique to systematically handle abstraction and approximation – born to describe (and prove correct) static analyses (for imperative programs) – popular mainly in declarative paradigms – viewed today as a general technique to reason about semantics at different levels of abstraction – successfully applied to distributed and mobile systems and to model checking – recently applied to program verification 3

Abstract Interpretation, Semantics, Analysis Algorithms l how abstract interpretation is often used in static program analysis – a semantics – an analysis algorithm developed by ad-hoc techniques – the A. I. Theory (definition of an abstract domain) is used to prove that the algorithm is correct, i. e. , that its results are an approximation of the property to be analyzed 4

Abstract Interpretation, Semantics, Analysis Algorithms l the abstract interpretation I like – a semantics – an abstract domain designed to model the property to be analyzed – the A. I. Theory is used to systematically derive the abstract semantics – the analysis algorithm is exactly the computation of the abstract semantics and is correct by construction 5

Abstract Interpretation Theory in 4 Steps l l concrete and abstract domain the Galois insertion abstract operations from the concrete to the abstract semantics 6

Concrete and Abstract Domains l l l two complete partial orders – the partial orders reflect precision u smaller is better concrete domain (C, ) – C has the structure of a powerset abstract domain (A, ) – each abstract value is a description of “a set of” concrete values 7

The Sign Abstract Domain l l concrete domain (P(Z), ) – sets of integers abstract domain (Sign, ) 8

Galois insertions (C, ), (A, ) : A C (concretization) : C A (abstraction) , monotonic x C. x ( (x)) y A. ( (y)) = y , mutually determine each other 9

The sign example sign (y) = glb of sign (x) – – – – , if x= bot {y|y>0}, if x= + {y|y 0}, if x= 0+ {0}, if x= 0 {y|y 0}, if x= 0{y|y<0}, if x= Z, if x= top – – – – bot , if y= - , if y {y|y<0} 0 - , if y {y|y 0} 0 , if y = {0} 0+ , if y {y|y 0} + , if y {y|y>0} top , if y Z 10

Abstract Operations l l the concrete semantic evaluation function is defined in terms of primitive semantic operations fi on C for each fi we need to provide a corresponding fi defined on A u u u fi must be locally correct, i. e. x 1, . . , xn C. fi (x 1, . . , xn) (fi ( (x 1), . . , (xn))) the optimal (most precise) abstract operator is fi (y 1, . . , yn) = (fi ( (y 1), . . , (yn))) the operator is complete (precise) if x 1, . . , xn (fi (x 1, . . , xn)) = fi ( (x 1), . . , (xn))) C. 11

Times Sign 12

Plus Sign 13

The Sign example l l Times and Plus are the usual operations lifted to P(Z) both Timessign and Plussign are optimal (hence correct) Timessign is also complete (no approximation) Plussign is necessarily incomplete sign(Times({2}, {-3})) = Timessign({2}), sign({-3})) sign(Plus({2}, {-3})) Plussign({2}), sign({-3})) 14

The Abstract Semantics l F = concrete semantic evaluation function – if we start from a standard semantic definition, the lifting to the powerset (collecting semantics) is simply a conceptual operation l l lfp F = concrete semantics F = abstract semantic evaluation function – obtained by replacing in F every concrete semantic operation by a corresponding (locally correct) abstract operation l lfp F = abstract semantics u global correctness (lfp F) lfp F – the abstract semantics is less precise than the abstraction of the concrete semantics 15

Where does the approximation come from? l l incomplete abstract operations more execution paths in the abstract control flow – the abstract state has not enough information to make deterministic choices – conditionals, pattern matching, etc. u the set of resulting abstract states is turned into a single abstract state, by performing an abstract lub operation 16

Approximation in abstract Sign computations l l l concrete state [x={3}] if x>2 then y: =3 else y: =-5; concrete state [x={3}, y={3}] u u abstract state [x=+] if x>2 then y: =3 else y: =-5; – the abstract guard “can be both true and false” – both paths need to be abstractly evaluated – the two resulting abstract states are merged by performing a lub in Sign u abstract state [x=+, y=top] 17

(lfp F) lfp F why computing lfp F ? l l lfp F cannot be computed in finitely many steps – steps are in general required lfp F can be computed in finitely many steps, if the abstract domain is finite or at least noetherian – no infinite increasing chains l static analysis 1 – noetherian abstract domain – termination, approximation l static analysis 2 – non-noetherian domain – termination via widening – further approximation l comparative semantics – non-noetherian domain – abstraction without approximation (completeness) (lfp F) = lfp F 18

Static Analysis l l abstract domain and Galois connection to model the property (possibly optimal) correct abstract operations F the analysis is the computation of lfp F l l if the abstract domain is nonnoetherian, or if the complexity of lfp F is too high – use a widening operator – which effectively computes an (upper) approximation of lfp F u one example later 19

Comparative Semantics (lfp F) = lfp F l l none of the two fixpoints is finitely computable useful to reason about different semantics and to systematically derive more abstract semantics – choice of the most adequate reference semantics for analysis and verification l is less expensive than F in computing the observable property modeled by F l hierarchy of transition systems semantics (P. Cousot, MFPS 97) – trace, big-step operational, denotational, relational, predicate transformer, axiomatic, etc. l systematic reconstruction of several fixpoint (TP-like) semantics for (positive) logic programs (Comini, Levi & Meo, Info. & Comp. 00) – applied in Pisa also to finite failure & infinite computations, CLP, CCP, Prolog, -Prolog, sequent calculi – no junk 20

Polymorphic type inference in ML-like functional languages l l the ad-hoc solution – in the structure of the semantic evaluation function – in the semantic domains (environment) – Milner’s algorithm, specified by a set of inference rules l l an elegant, well-understood, universally accepted semantic formalization the systematic derivation via abstract interpretation – provides a better insight – shows how to improve precision inference rules mimic the concrete semantics l semantics to well-typed programs only introduces approximation – if true then 2 else false l the most general polymorphic type for recursive functions is not computable – the inferred type may not be the most general – some type-correct programs cannot be typed 21

Polymorphic type inference via Abstract Interpretation l l abstract values = pairs of – a term (with variables) u type expression – a constraint (on variables) u set of term equalities in solved form l partial order (on terms only) – top is “no type” – bottom is “any type” l an optimal abstract operation – + ((t 1, c 1), (t 2, c 2)) = (int, c 1 c 2 {t 1=int , t 2=int}) abstracting functional values – the concrete semantics E x. e = v. E e (bind x v) – the abstract value let v 1 = newvar() in let (v 2, c 2) = E e (bind x (v 1, {})) in (v 1 c 2 -> v 2, c 2) – t 1 t 2, if t 2 is an instance of t 1 l the domain is non-noetherian – there exist infinite increasing chains 22

Recursion and Widening l l l the abstraction of recursive functions is similar to the one of regular functions, but – a fixpoint computation is required – the first approximation of the abstract value of the function is bottom since the abstract domain is non-noetherian the fixpoint computation may diverge the solution in Milner’s algorithm – take the results of the first two iterations and compute their lub (most general common instantiation, computed through unification) l – if the lub is top (unification fails), the program is not typable (type error) this is exactly a widening operator, which returns a (correct) upper approximation of the lfp (Furiesi, Master Thesis Pisa. 99) 23

How to improve precision l straightforward! – perform at most k iterations of the fixpoint computation – if we reach a fixpoint, it is the most general type – otherwise, we apply Milner’s widening to the last two results u u l l one example (due to Cousot) Ca. ML – l we succeed in typing more functions we get more precise types # let rec f f 1 g n x = if n=0 then (g x) else (((((f f 1)(fun x -> (fun h -> (g(h x)))))(n - 1))(x))(f 1)); ; This expression has type ('a -> 'a) -> 'b but is here used with type 'b our answer (the fixpoint is reached in 3 iterations) – val f : ('a -> 'a) -> ('a -> 'b) -> int -> 'a -> 'b = <fun> 24

Abstract Interpretation vs. Type Systems Patrick Cousot has reconstructed a hierarchy of type systems for ML-like l languages by using abstract interpretation (Cousot, POPL 97) type systems have been proposed to cope with other static analyses (strictness, various properties related to security) l l type systems need to be proved correct wrt a semantics abstract semantics are systematically derived from the semantics and are correct by construction two related open interesting problems – – comparison of the two approaches from the viewpoint of expressive power and analysis precision (and complexity) definition of methods to automatically translate formalizations from one approach to the other 25

Static Analysis of Logic Programs abstract Interpretation is very popular in logic languages l – the computational model has several opportunities for optimization, based on analysis results – it is (relatively) easy to define, because the standard semantics is collecting and the concrete domain (sets of substitutions) is quite simple several important properties (groundness, freeness, sharing, depth(k)) l l for some properties (i. e. , groundness and sharing) a lot of different abstract domains – techniques to compare the relative precision of abstract domains – important results on techniques for the systematic design of abstract domains, which can probably be applied to other paradigms as well l abstract compilation in CLP (Giacobazzi, Debray & Levi, JLP 95) – the program is transformed by syntactically replacing concrete constraints by abstract constraints – the abstract computation is a standard CLP computation on a different constraint system 26

Groundness in Logic Programs l l CLP version concrete domain – (P(Eqns), ), sets of term equations in solved form concrete semantics – the CLP version of the s-semantics (answer constraints) 3 abstract domains – G: the property of being ground – DEF: functional groundness dependencies – POS: DEF + some disjunctive information u lattices shown in the 2 -variables case 27

An example l the program p(X, Y) : - X=a. p(X, Y) : - Y=b. q(X, Y) : - X=Y. r(X, Y) : - p(X, Y), q(X, Y). l l the concrete semantics p(X, Y) -> {{X=a}, {Y=b}} q(X, Y) -> {{X=Y}} r(X, Y) -> {{X=a, Y=a}, {X=b, Y=b}} in the concrete semantics of r – both the arguments are bound to ground terms (in all the answer constraints) 28

The domain G G (v) = – , if v= bot – {e Eqns | X is bound to a ground term in e }, v= X X is always ground – Eqns, if v= true no groundness information l the program p(X, Y) : - X=a. p(X, Y) : - Y=b. q(X, Y) : - X=Y. r(X, Y) : - p(X, Y), q(X, Y). l l the concrete semantics l p(X, Y) -> {{X=a}, {Y=b}} q(X, Y) -> {{X=Y}} r(X, Y) -> {{X=a, Y=a}, {X=b, Y=b}} the abstract program p(X, Y) : - lub. G (X, Y). q(X, Y) : - true. r(X, Y) : - glb. G (p(X, Y), q(X, Y)). l the abstraction of the concrete semantics p(X, Y) -> true q(X, Y) -> true r(X, Y) -> X & Y the abstract semantics p(X, Y) -> true q(X, Y) -> true r(X, Y) -> true 29 if

The domain Def (v) = – {e Eqns | X = Y e}, if v= X Y X is ground if and only if Y is ground – {e Eqns | X = t e and Y occurs in t}, if v= X Y if X is ground then Y is ground – l the program p(X, Y) : - X=a. p(X, Y) : - Y=b. q(X, Y) : - X=Y. r(X, Y) : - p(X, Y), q(X, Y). l l …. . the concrete semantics l p(X, Y) -> {{X=a}, {Y=b}} q(X, Y) -> {{X=Y}} r(X, Y) -> {{X=a, Y=a}, {X=b, Y=b}} the abstract program p(X, Y) : - lub. Def (X, Y). q(X, Y) : - X Y. r(X, Y) : - glb. Def (p(X, Y), q(X, Y)). l the abstraction of the concrete semantics p(X, Y) -> true q(X, Y) -> X Y r(X, Y) -> X & Y the abstract semantics p(X, Y) -> true q(X, Y) -> X Y r(X, Y) -> X Y 30

The domain Pos pos (v) = – {e Eqns | either X or Y is bound to a ground term in e }, if v= X Y either X or Y is ground – l the program p(X, Y) : - X=a. p(X, Y) : - Y=b. q(X, Y) : - X=Y. r(X, Y) : - p(X, Y), q(X, Y). l l …. the concrete semantics l p(X, Y) -> {{X=a}, {Y=b}} q(X, Y) -> {{X=Y}} r(X, Y) -> {{X=a, Y=a}, {X=b, Y=b}} the abstract program p(X, Y) : - lubpos (X, Y). q(X, Y) : - X Y. r(X, Y) : - glbpos (p(X, Y), q(X, Y)). l the abstraction of the concrete semantics p(X, Y) -> X Y q(X, Y) -> X Y r(X, Y) -> X & Y the abstract semantics p(X, Y) -> X Y q(X, Y) -> X Y r(X, Y) -> X & Y 31

Program Verification by Abstract Interpretation l F = concrete semantic evaluation function – concrete enough to observe the property l l l – if F ( S ) S – then S is a prefixpoint of F – hence the property is modeled by an abstract domain (lfp F) (A, ) and a Galois insertion , F = abstract semantic evaluation function S = specification of the property, i. e. , abstraction of the intended concrete semantics l partial correctness: (lfp F) S l sufficient partial correctness condition: F ( S ) S lfp F S (Comini, Levi, Meo & Vitiello, JLP 99) 32

Analysis and Verification l l l F = concrete semantic evaluation function F = abstract semantic evaluation function analysis: compute lfp F – we need to compute a fixpoint – noetherian domain or widening l S = specification of the property l verification: prove F ( S ) S – no fixpoint computation and no need for noetherian domains – finite representation of the specification – decidability of 33

Completeness of the proof method l l assume the program to be partially correct wrt the specification S , i. e. , (lfp F) S then there exists another specification T , stronger than S , such that the sufficient condition F ( T ) T holds l we have shown that the proof method is complete if and only if the abstraction is complete (precise) (Levi & Volpe, PLILP 98) 34

Proof methods and the reference semantics l one can be interested in establishing different kinds of properties – of the final state – of the relation between initial and final state – of the relation between specific pairs of intermediate states, e. g. , procedure calls – …. l there exist different corresponding proof methods l l l all the proof methods are instances of F ( S ) S for different choices of the concrete semantic evaluation function F F can be derived by abstract interpretation (comparative semantics) from the most concrete semantics, i. e. , a trace semantics first step of abstraction = choice of the “right” semantics in (positive) logic programming, all the known verification methods have been reconstructed (Levi & Volpe, PLILP 98) 35

Making F ( S ) S effective l extensional specifications l – typical analysis properties described by noetherian abstract domains – properties such as polimorphic types which lead to finite abstract semantics, even with non-noetherian domains l intensional specifications, specified by means of assertions l assertions are abstract domains – a formula describes the set of all the concrete states which “satisfy” it (concretization) – if the specification language is closed under conjunction, it is easy to define the abstraction function we can derive an abstract function F , which computes on the domain of assertions and instantiate the verification condition (Comini, Gori & Levi, MFCSIT 00) the relation on the domain of assertions must be decidable an open problem: completeness of the abstract semantics associated to a specific language of assertions 36

Specification Languages l decidable specification languages have been proposed for functional programming and logic programming – one example: a powerful language which allows one to express several properties of logic programs, including types, freeness and groundness (Volpe, SCP 00) l experiments using Horn Clause Logic as specification language (Comini, Gori & Levi, AGP 00) – it is not decidable – most of the verification conditions can be proved without using a theorem prover u simple logic program transformation techniques, which can be partially supported by an automatic tool 37

Systematic abstract domain design l l once we have the abstract domain, the design of the abstract semantics is systematic abstract interpretation theory provides results which can be exploited to make the design of abstract domains (more) systematic – to compare and combine domains – to refine domains so as to improve their precision l reduced product (of domains A and B) – allows one to analyze (together) the properties modeled by A and B – often delivers better results than the separate analyses u because of domain interaction lifting to the powerset (and disjunctive completion ) – roughly speaking, transform A into P(A) – better precision u no loss of information in computing lub’s 38

Operations on Abstract Domains l several useful operators on abstract domains (refinements) – a survey in (File’, Giacobazzi & Ranzato, ACM Comput. Surv. 96) l linear completion (Giacobazzi, Ranzato & Scozzari, SAS 98) – functional dependencies modeled by linear implication l reconstruction of all the known domains for groundness analysis (Scozzari, SAS 97) – DEF = G -> G – POS = DEF -> DEF – POS = POS -> POS u optimality of POS successfully applied to other domains for logic programs – types (Levi & Spoto, PLILP 98) – sharing and freeness (Levi & Spoto, PEPM 00) open problems – do the same refinements apply to other programming paradigms? – can refinements be extended to domains of assertions and to type systems? 39

Abstract Interpretation l a mathematically simple and solid foundation for – comparative semantics – static analysis – verification l a methodology for the systematic derivation of – abstract domains from the property u complexity issues? u quantitative analyses? – abstract semantics from the concrete semantics and the abstract domain 40