# ACTRIS COQ DEVELOPMENT
This directory contains the artifact for the paper "Actris: Session Type
Based Reasoning in Separation Logic".
It has been built and tested with the following dependencies
- Coq 8.10
- [std++](https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/robbertkrebbers/coq-stdpp) at
commit 9041e6d8.
- [iris](https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris) at
commit 1f83451a.
In order to build, install the above dependencies and then run
`make -j [num CPU cores]` to compile Actris.
## Theory of Actris
The theory of Actris (semantics of channels, the CPS model, and the proof rules)
can be found in the directory [theories/channel](theories/channel). The files
correspond to the following parts of the paper:
- [theories/channel/channel.v](theories/channel/channel.v): The definitional
semantics of bidirectional channels in terms of Iris's HeapLang language.
- [theories/channel/proto_model.v](theories/channel/proto_model.v): The CPS
model of Dependent Separation Protocols.
- [theories/channel/proto_channel.v](theories/channel/proto_channel.v): The
definition of the connective `↣` for channel ownership, and lemmas
corresponding to the Actris proof rules. The relevant proof rules are as
follows:
+ `new_chan_proto_spec`: proof rule for `new_chan`.
+ `send_proto_spec` and `send_proto_spec_packed`: proof rules for `send`, the
first version is more convenient to use in Coq, but otherwise the same as
the latter, which is the rule in the paper.
+ `recv_proto_spec` and `recv_proto_spec_packed`: proof rules for `recv`, the
first version is more convenient to use in Coq, but otherwise the same as
the latter, which is the rule in the paper.
+ `select_spec`: proof rule for `select`.
+ `branch_spec`: proof rule for `branch`.
## Weakest preconditions and Coq tactics
The presentation of Actris logic in the paper makes use of Hoare triples. In
Coq, we make use of weakest preconditions because these are more convenient for
interactive theorem proving using the the [proof mode tactics][ProofMode]. To
state concise program specifications, we use the notion of *Texan Triples* from
Iris, which provides a convenient "Hoare triple"-like syntax around weakest
preconditions:
```
{{{ P }}} e {{{ x .. y, RET v; Q }}} :=
□ ∀ Φ, P -∗ ▷ (∀ x .. y, Q -∗ Φ v) -∗ WP e {{ Φ }}
```
In order to prove programs using Actris, one can make use of a combination of
[Iris's symbolic execution tactics for HeapLang programs][HeapLang] and
[Actris's symbolic execution tactics for message passing][ActrisProofMode]. The
Actris tactics are as follows:
- `wp_send (t1 .. tn) with "selpat"`: symbolically execute `send c v` by looking
up ownership of a send protocol `H : c ↣ y1 .. yn, MSG v; {{ P }}; prot`
in the proof mode context. The tactic instantiates the variables `y1 .. yn`
using the terms `t1 .. tn` and uses `selpat` to prove `P`. If fewer terms
`t` are given than variables `y`, they will be instantiated using existential
variables (evars). The tactic will put `H : c ↣ prot` back into the context.
- `wp_recv (x1 .. xn) as "ipat"`: symbolically execute `recv c` by looking up
`H : c ↣ y1 .. yn, MSG v; {{ P }}; prot` in the proof mode context. The
variables `y1 .. yn` are introduced as `x1 .. xn`, and the predicate `P` is
introduced using the introduction pattern `ipat`. The tactic will put
`H : c ↣ prot` back into the context.
- `wp_select with "selpat"`: symbolically execute `select c b` by looking up
`H : c ↣ prot1 {Q1}<+>{Q2} prot2` in the proof mode context. The selection
pattern `selpat` is used to resolve either `Q1` or `Q2`, based on the chosen
branch `b`. The tactic will put `H : c ↣ prot1` or `H : c ↣ prot2` back
into the context based on the chosen branch `b`.
- `wp_branch as ipat1 | ipat2`: symbolically execute `branch c e1 e2` by looking
up `H : c ↣ prot1 {Q1}<&>{Q2} prot2` in the proof mode context. The result of
the tactic involves two subgoals, in which `Q1` and `Q2` are introduced using
the introduction patterns `ipat1` and `ipat2`, respectively. The tactic will
put `H : c ↣ prot1` and `H : c ↣ prot2` back into the contexts of the two
respectively goals.
The above tactics implicitly perform normalization of the protocol `prot` in
the hypothesis `H : c ↣ prot`. For example, `wp_send` also works if there is a
channel with the protocol `iProto_dual (( y1 .. yn, MSG v; {{ P }}; END) <++> prot)`.
Concretely, the normalization performs the following actions:
- It re-associates appends (`<++>`), and removes left-identities (`END`) of it.
- It moves appends (`<++>`) into sends (``), receives (``), selections
(`<+>`) and branches (`<&>`).
- It distributes duals (`iProto_dual`) over append (`<++>`).
- It unfolds `prot1` into `prot2` if there is an instance of the type class
`ProtoUnfold prot1 prot2`. When defining a recursive protocol, it is
useful to define a `ProtoUnfold` instance to obtain automatic unfolding
of the recursive protocol. For example, see `sort_protocol_br_unfold` in
[theories/examples/sort_br_del.v](theories/examples/sort_br_del.v).
[HeapLang]: https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/blob/master/HeapLang.md
[ProofMode]: https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/blob/master/ProofMode.md
[ActrisProofMode]: theories/channel/proofmode.v
## Examples
The examples can be found in the direction [theories/examples](theories/examples).
The following list gives a mapping between the examples in the paper and their
mechanization in Coq:
1. Introduction: [theories/examples/basics.v](theories/examples/basics.v)
2. Tour of Actris
- 2.3 Basic: [theories/examples/sort.v](theories/examples/sort.v)
- 2.4 Higher-Order Functions: [theories/examples/sort.v](theories/examples/sort.v)
- 2.5 Branching: [theories/examples/sort_br_del.v](theories/examples/sort_br_del.v)
- 2.6 Recursion: [theories/examples/sort_br_del.v](theories/examples/sort_br_del.v)
- 2.7 Delegation: [theories/examples/sort_br_del.v](theories/examples/sort_br_del.v)
- 2.8 Dependent: [theories/examples/sort_fg.v](theories/examples/sort_fg.v)
3. Manifest sharing via locks
- 3.1 Sample program: [theories/examples/basics.v](theories/examples/basics.v)
- 3.2 Distributed mapper: [theories/examples/map.v](theories/examples/map.v)
4. Case study: map reduce:
- Utilities for shuffling/grouping: [theories/utils/group.v](theories/utils/group.v)
- Implementation and verification: [theories/examples/map_reduce.v](theories/examples/map_reduce.v)
## Differences between the formalization and the paper
There are a number of small differences between the paper presentation
of Actris and the formalization in Coq, that are briefly discussed here.
- **Weakest preconditions versus Hoare triples**
See the section "Weakest preconditions and Coq tactics" above.
- **Connectives for physical ownership of channels**
In the paper, physical ownership of a channel is formalized using a single
connective `(c1,c2) ↣ (vs1,vs2)`, while the mechanization has two connectives
for the endpoints and one for connecting them, namely:
- `chan_own γ Left vs1` and `chan_own γ Right vs1`
- `is_chan N γ c1 c2`
Here, `γ` is a ghost name and `N` an invariant name. This setup is less
intuitive but gives rise to a more practical Jacobs/Piessens-style spec of
`recv` that does not need a closing view shift (to handle the case that the
buffer is empty).
- **Later modalities in primitive rules for channels**
The primitive rules for `send` and `recv` (`send_spec` and `recv_spec` in
[theories/channel/channel.v](theories/channel/channel.v)) contain three later
(`▷`) modalities, which are omitted for brevity's sake in the paper. These
later modalities expose that these operations perform at least three steps in
the operational semantics, and are needed to deal with the three levels of
indirection in the invariant for protocols:
1. the `▶` in the CPS encoding of protocols,
2. the higher-order ghost state used for ownership of protocols, and
3. the opening of the protocol invariant.