Proof of Program Integrity¶
This section presents the proof capability of GNATprove, a major tool for the SPARK language. We focus here on the simpler proofs that you'll need to write to verify your program's integrity. The primary objective of performing proof of your program's integrity is to ensure the absence of runtime errors during its execution.
The analysis steps discussed here are only sound if you've previously performed Flow Analysis. You shouldn't proceed further if there you still have unjustified flow analysis messages for your program.
There's always the potential for errors that aren't detected during compilation to occur during a program's execution. These errors, called runtime errors, are those targeted by GNATprove.
There are various kinds of runtime errors, the most common being references
that are out of the range of an array (buffer overflow in Ada), subtype range
violations, overflows in computations, and divisions by zero. The code
below illustrates many examples of possible runtime errors, all within a
single statement. Look at the assignment statement setting the
I + J'th cell of an array
A to the value
There are quite a number of errors that may occur when executing this code.
If we don't know anything about the values of
Q, we can't rule out any of those errors.
First, the computation of
J can overflow, for example if
J is positive.
A (Integer'Last + 1) := P / Q;
Next, the sum, which is used as an array index, may not be in the range of the index of the array.
A (A'Last + 1) := P / Q;
On the other side of the assignment, the division may also overflow, though
only in the very special case where
is -1 because of the asymmetric range of signed integer types.
A (I + J) := Integer'First / -1;
The division is also not allowed if
Q is 0.
A (I + J) := P / 0;
Finally, since the array contains natural numbers, it's also an error to store a negative value in it.
A (I + J) := 1 / -1;
The compiler generates checks in the executable code corresponding to each of those runtime errors. Each check raises an exception if it fails. For the above assignment statement, we can see examples of exceptions raised due to failed checks for each of the different cases above.
A (Integer'Last + 1) := P / Q; -- raised CONSTRAINT_ERROR : overflow check failed A (A'Last + 1) := P / Q; -- raised CONSTRAINT_ERROR : index check failed A (I + J) := Integer'First / (-1); -- raised CONSTRAINT_ERROR : overflow check failed A (I + J) := 1 / (-1); -- raised CONSTRAINT_ERROR : range check failed A (I + J) := P / 0; -- raised CONSTRAINT_ERROR : divide by zero
These runtime checks are costly, both in terms of program size and execution time. It may be appropriate to remove them if we can statically ensure they aren't needed at runtime, in other words if we can prove that the condition tested for can never occur.
This is where the analysis done by GNATprove comes in. It can be used to demonstrate statically that none of these errors can ever occur at runtime. Specifically, GNATprove logically interprets the meaning of every instruction in the program. Using this interpretation, GNATprove generates a logical formula called a verification condition for each check that would otherwise be required by the Ada (and hence SPARK) language.
A (Integer'Last + 1) := P / Q; -- medium: overflow check might fail A (A'Last + 1) := P / Q; -- medium: array index check might fail A (I + J) := Integer'First / (-1); -- medium: overflow check might fail A (I + J) := 1 / (-1); -- medium: range check might fail A (I + J) := P / 0; -- medium: divide by zero might fail
GNATprove then passes these verification conditions to an automatic prover, stated as conditions that must be true to avoid the error. If every such condition can be validated by a prover (meaning that it can be mathematically shown to always be true), we've been able to prove that no error can ever be raised at runtime when executing that program.
To scale to large programs, GNATprove performs proofs on a per-subprogram basis by relying on preconditions and postconditions to properly summarize the input and output state of each subprogram. More precisely, when verifying the body of a subprogram, GNATprove assumes it knows nothing about the possible initial values of its parameters and of the global variables it accesses except what you state in the subprogram's precondition. If you don't specify a precondition, it can't make any assumptions.
For example, the following code shows that the body of
Increment can be
successfully verified: its precondition constrains the value of its
X to be less than
Integer'Last so we know the overflow
check is always false.
In the same way, when a subprogram is called, GNATprove assumes its
in out parameters and the global variables it writes
can be modified in any way compatible with their postconditions. For
Increment has no postcondition, GNATprove doesn't know
that the value of
X after the call is always less than
Integer'Last. Therefore, it can't prove that the addition following
the call to
Increment can't overflow.
There are two cases where GNATprove doesn't require modularity and hence
doesn't make the above assumptions. First, local subprograms without
contracts can be inlined if they're simple enough and are neither recursive
nor have multiple return points. If we remove the contract from
Increment, it fits the criteria for inlining.
GNATprove now sees the call to
Increment exactly as if the increment on
X was done outside that call, so it can successfully verify that
neither addition can overflow.
The other case involves functions. If we define a function as an expression function, with or without contracts, GNATprove uses the expression itself as the postcondition on the result of the function.
In our example, replacing
Increment with an expression function allows
GNATprove to successfully verify the overflow check in the addition.
Ada contracts are perfectly suited for formal verification, but are
primarily designed to be checked at runtime. When you specify the
-gnata switch, the compiler generates code that verifies the contracts
at runtime. If an Ada contract isn't satisfied for a given subprogram call,
the program raises the
Assert_Failure exception. This switch is
particularly useful during development and testing, but you may also retain
run-time execution of assertions, and specifically preconditions, during
the program's deployment to avoid an inconsistent state.
Consider the incorrect call to
Increment below, which violates its
precondition. One way to detect this error is by compiling the function
with assertions enabled and testing it with inputs that trigger the
violation. Another way, one that doesn't require guessing the needed
inputs, is to run GNATprove.
Similarly, consider the incorrect implementation of function
below, which violates its postcondition. Likewise, one way to detect this
error is by compiling the function with assertions enabled and testing with
inputs that trigger the violation. Another way, one which again doesn't
require finding the inputs needed to demonstrate the error, is to run
The benefits of dynamically checking contracts extends beyond making testing easier. Early failure detection also allows an easier recovery and facilitates debugging, so you may want to enable these checks at runtime to terminate execution before some damaging or hard-to-debug action occurs.
GNATprove statically analyses preconditions and postcondition. It verifies
preconditions every time a subprogram is called, which is the runtime
semantics of contracts. Postconditions, on the other hand, are verified
once as part of the verification of the subprogram's body. For example,
GNATprove must wait until
Increment is improperly called to detect the
precondition violation, since a precondition is really a contract for the
caller. On the other hand, it doesn't need
Absolute to be called to
detect that its postcondition doesn't hold for all its possible inputs.
Expressions in Ada contracts have the same semantics as Boolean expressions elsewhere, so runtime errors can occur during their computation. To simplify both debugging of assertions and combining testing and static verification, the same semantics are used by GNATprove.
While proving programs, GNATprove verifies that no error can ever be raised
during the execution of the contracts. However, you may sometimes find
those semantics too heavy, in particular with respect to overflow checks,
because they can make it harder to specify an appropriate precondition. We
see this in the function
GNATprove issues a message on this code warning about a possible overflow
when computing the sum of
Y in the precondition. Indeed,
since expressions in assertions have normal Ada semantics, this addition
can overflow, as you can easily see by compiling and running the code that
Add with arguments
Integer'Last and 1.
On the other hand, you sometimes may prefer GNATprove to use the
mathematical semantics of addition in contracts while the generated code
still properly verifies that no error is ever raised at runtime in the body
of the program. You can get this behavior by using the compiler switch
-gnato?? (for example
-gnato13), which allows you to independently
set the overflow mode in code (the first digit) and assertions (the second
digit). For both, you can either reduce the number of overflow checks (the
value 2), completely eliminate them (the value 3), or preserve the default
Ada semantics (the value 1).
Additional Assertions and Contracts¶
As we've seen, a key feature of SPARK is that it allows us to state
properties to check using assertions and contracts. SPARK supports
preconditions and postconditions as well as assertions introduced by the
The SPARK language also includes new contract types used to assist formal
verification. The new pragma
Assume is treated as an assertion
during execution but introduces an assumption when proving programs. Its
value is a Boolean expression which GNATprove assumes to be true without
any attempt to verify that it's true. You'll find this feature useful, but
you must use it with great care. Here's an example of using it.
Contract_Cases aspect is another construct introduced for
GNATprove, but which also acts as an assertion during execution. It allows
you to specify the behavior of a subprogram using a disjunction of
cases. Each element of a
Contract_Cases aspect is a guard, which
is evaluated before the call and may only reference the subprogram's
inputs, and a consequence. At each call of the subprogram, one and only
one guard is permitted to evaluate to
True. The consequence of that
case is a contract that's required to be satisfied when the subprogram
Similarly to how it analyzes a subprogram's precondition, GNATprove
Contract_Cases only once. It verifies the validity of
each consequence (given the truth of its guard) and the disjointness and
completeness of the guard conditions (meaning that exactly one guard must
be true for each possible set of input values).
Debugging Failed Proof Attempts¶
GNATprove may report an error while verifying a program for any of the following reasons:
there might be an error in the program; or
the property may not be provable as written because more information is required; or
the prover used by GNATprove may be unable to prove a perfectly valid property.
We spend the remainder of this section discussing the sometimes tricky task of debugging failed proof attempts.
Debugging Errors in Code or Specification¶
First, let's discuss the case where there's indeed an error in the program.
There are two possibilities: the code may be incorrect or, equally likely,
the specification may be incorrect. As an example, there's an error in our
Incr_Until below which makes its
Since this is an assertion that can be executed, it may help you find the
problem if you run the program with assertions enabled on representative
sets of inputs. This allows you to find bugs in both the code and its
contracts. In this case, testing
Incr_Until with an input greater than
1000 raises an exception at runtime.
The error message shows that the first contract case is failing, which
True. However, if we print the value
Incremented before returning, we see that it's
expected for the input we provided. The error here is that guards of
contract cases are evaluated before the call, so our specification is
wrong! To correct this, we should either write
X < 1000 as the guard of
the first case or use a standard postcondition with an if-expression.
Debugging Cases where more Information is Required¶
Even if both the code and the assertions are correct, GNATprove may still report that it can't prove a verification condition for a property. This can happen for two reasons:
The property may be unprovable because the code is missing some assertion. One category of these cases is due to the modularity of the analysis which, as we discussed above, means that GNATprove only knows about the properties of your subprograms that you have explicitly written.
There may be some information missing in the logical model of the program used by GNATprove.
Let's look at the case where the code and the specification are correct but
there's some information missing. As an example, GNATprove finds the
Increase to be unprovable.
This postcondition is a conditional. It says that if the parameter (
is less than a certain value (
C), its value will be increased by the
procedure while if it's greater, its value will be set to
C has the value 100, the code of
10 to the value of
X if it was initially less than 90, increments
by 1 if it was between 90 and 99, and sets
X to 100 if it was greater
or equal to 100. This behavior does satisfy the postcondition, so why is
the postcondition not provable?
The values in the counterexample returned by GNATprove in its message gives
us a clue:
C = 0 and X = 10 and X'Old = 0. Indeed, if
C is not
equal to 100, our reasoning above is incorrect: the values of 0 for
X on entry indeed result in
X being 10 on exit, which violates
We probably didn't expect the value of
C to change, or at least not to
go below 90. But, in that case, we should have stated so by either
C to be constant or by adding a precondition to the
Increase subprogram. If we do either of those, GNATprove is able to
prove the postcondition.
Debugging Prover Limitations¶
Finally, there are cases where GNATprove provides a perfectly valid verification condition for a property, but it's nevertheless not proved by the automatic prover that runs in the later stages of the tool's execution. This is quite common. Indeed, GNATprove produces its verification conditions in first-order logic, which is not decidable, especially in combination with the rules of arithmetic. Sometimes, the automatic prover just needs more time. Other times, the prover will abandon the search almost immediately or loop forever without reaching a conclusive answer (either a proof or a counterexample).
For example, the postcondition of our
GCD function below — which
calculates the value of the
GCD of two positive numbers using Euclide's
algorithm — can't be verified with GNATprove's default settings.
The first thing we try is increasing the amount of time the prover is
allowed to spend on each verification condition using the
option of GNATprove (e.g., by using the dialog box in GPS). In this
example, increasing it to one minute, which is relatively high, doesn't
help. We can also specify an alternative automatic prover — if we have
one — using the option
--prover of GNATprove (or the dialog box). For
our postcondition, we tried Alt-Ergo, CVC4, and Z3 without any luck.
To better understand the reason for the failure, we added intermediate
assertions to simplify the proof and pin down the part that's causing the
problem. Adding such assertions is often a good idea when trying to
understand why a property is not proved. Here, provers can't verify that if
B can be divided by
Result so can
may seem surprising, but non-linear arithmetic, involving, for example,
multiplication, modulo, or exponentiation, is a difficult topic for provers
and is not handled very well in practice by any of the general-purpose ones
like Alt-Ergo, CVC4, or Z3.
Code Examples / Pitfalls¶
We end with some code examples and pitfalls.
Lists defines a linked-list data structure. We call
Link(I,J) to make a link from index
I to index
J and call
Goes_To(I,J) to determine if we've created a link from index
J. The postcondition of
Goes_To to state that
there must be a link between its arguments once
This example is correct, but can't be verified by GNATprove. This is
Goes_To itself has no postcondition, so nothing is known about
We now redefine
Goes_To as an expression function.
GNATprove can fully prove this version:
Goes_To is an expression
function, so its body is available for proof (specifically, for creating
the postcondition needed for the proof).
Stacks defines an abstract stack type with a
procedure that adds an element at the top of the stack and a function
Peek that returns the content of the element at the top of the stack
(without removing it).
This example isn't correct. The postcondition of
Push is only satisfied
if the stack isn't full when we call
We now change the behavior of
Push so it raises an exception when the
stack is full instead of returning.
The postcondition of
Push is now proved because GNATprove only
considers execution paths leading to normal termination. But it issues a
message warning that exception
Is_Full_E may be raised at runtime.
Let's add a precondition to
Push stating that the stack shouldn't be
This example is correct. With the addition of the precondition, GNATprove
can now verify that
Is_Full_E can never be raised at runtime.
Memories defines a type
Chunk that models chunks of
memory. Each element of the array, represented by its index, corresponds
to one data element. The procedure
Read_Record reads two pieces of
data starting at index
From out of the chunk represented by the value
This example is correct, but it can't be verified by GNATprove, which
Read_One on its own and notices that an overflow may occur in
its precondition in certain contexts.
Let's rewrite the precondition of
Read_One to avoid any possible overflow.
This example is also not correct: unfortunately, our attempt to correct
Read_One's precondition failed. For example, an overflow will occur at
negative. This is possible here because type
base index type instead of
Let's completely remove the precondition of
This example is correct and fully proved. We could have fixed the contract
Read_One to correctly handle both positive and negative values of
Memory'Last, but we found it simpler to let the function be inlined for
proof by removing its precondition.
Compute performs various computations on its argument.
The computation performed depends on its input range and is reflected in
its contract, which we express using a
This example isn't correct. We duplicated the content of
in its contract. This is incorrect because the semantics of
Contract_Cases require disjoint cases, just like a case
statement. The counterexample returned by GNATprove shows that
X = 0 is
covered by two different case-guards (the first and the second).
Let's rewrite the contract of
Compute to avoid overlapping cases.
This example is still not correct. GNATprove can successfully prove the
different cases are disjoint and also successfully verify each case
individually. This isn't enough, though: a
Contract_Cases must cover
all cases. Here, we forgot the value -200, which is what GNATprove reports in