skip to main content
research-article
Open access

Undecidability of Propositional Separation Logic and Its Neighbours

Published: 24 April 2014 Publication History

Abstract

In this article, we investigate the logical structure of memory models of theoretical and practical interest. Our main interest is in “the logic behind a fixed memory model”, rather than in “a model of any kind behind a given logical system”. As an effective language for reasoning about such memory models, we use the formalism of separation logic. Our main result is that for any concrete choice of heap-like memory model, validity in that model is undecidable even for purely propositional formulas in this language.
The main novelty of our approach to the problem is that we focus on validity in specific, concrete memory models, as opposed to validity in general classes of models.
Besides its intrinsic technical interest, this result also provides new insights into the nature of their decidable fragments. In particular, we show that, in order to obtain such decidable fragments, either the formula language must be severely restricted or the valuations of propositional variables must be constrained.
In addition, we show that a number of propositional systems that approximate separation logic are undecidable as well. In particular, this resolves the open problems of decidability for Boolean BI and Classical BI.
Moreover, we provide one of the simplest undecidable propositional systems currently known in the literature, called “Minimal Boolean BI”, by combining the purely positive implication-conjunction fragment of Boolean logic with the laws of multiplicative *-conjunction, its unit and its adjoint implication, originally provided by intuitionistic multiplicative linear logic. Each of these two components is individually decidable: the implication-conjunction fragment of Boolean logic is co-NP-complete, and intuitionistic multiplicative linear logic is NP-complete.
All of our undecidability results are obtained by means of a direct encoding of Minsky machines.

References

[1]
A. Ahmed, L. Jia, and D. Walker. 2003. Reasoning about hierarchical storage. In Proceedings of LICS-18. IEEE Computer Society, 33--44.
[2]
A. V. Aho, J. E. Hopcroft, and J. D. Ullman. 1974. The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms. Addison-Wesley.
[3]
G. E. Andrews. 1976. The Theory of partitions. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications. Addison-Wesley.
[4]
N. P. Benton, G. M. Bierman, V. de Paiva, and M. Hyland. 1993. A term calculus for intuitionistic linear logic. In Proceedings of TLCA-1. Springer, 75--90.
[5]
J. Berdine, C. Calcagno, and P. O'Hearn. 2004. A decidable fragment of separation logic. In Proceedings of FSTTCS-24. Springer, 97--109.
[6]
R. Bornat, C. Calcagno, P. O'Hearn, and M. Parkinson. 2005. Permission accounting in separation logic. In Proceedings of POPL-32. 59--70.
[7]
J. Brotherston. 2012. Bunched logics displayed. Studia Logica 100, 6, 1223--1254.
[8]
J. Brotherston and C. Calcagno. 2010. Classical BI: Its semantics and proof theory. Logical Meth. Comput. Sci. 6, 3.
[9]
J. Brotherston and M. Kanovich. 2010. Undecidability of propositional separation logic and its neighbours. In Proceedings of LICS-25. IEEE Computer Society, 137--146.
[10]
J. Brotherston and J. Villard. 2014. Parametric completeness for separation theories. In Proceedings of POPL-41. ACM. 453--464.
[11]
C. Calcagno, D. Distefano, P. O'Hearn, and H. Yang. 2011. Compositional shape analysis by means of bi-abduction. J. ACM 58, 6.
[12]
C. Calcagno, P. O'Hearn, and H. Yang. 2007. Local action and abstract separation logic. In Proceedings of LICS-22. IEEE Computer Society, 366--378.
[13]
C. Calcagno, H. Yang, and P. W. O'Hearn. 2001. Computability and complexity results for a spatial assertion language for data structures. In Proceedings of FSTTCS-21. Springer, 108--119.
[14]
D. Distefano and M. Parkinson. 2008. jStar: Towards practical verification for Java. In Proceedings of OOPSLA-23. ACM, 213--226.
[15]
M. Dodds, X. Feng, M. Parkinson, and V. Vafeiadis. 2009. Deny-guarantee reasoning. In Proceedings of ESOP-18. Springer, 363--377.
[16]
D. Foulis and M. Bennett. 1994. Effect algebras and unsharp quantum logics. Found. Phys. 24, 1331--1352.
[17]
D. Galmiche and D. Larchey-Wendling. 2006. Expressivity properties of Boolean BI through relational models. In Proceedings of FSTTCS-26. Springer, 357--368.
[18]
D. Galmiche, D. Méry, and D. Pym. 2005. The semantics of BI and resource tableaux. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 15, 1033--1088.
[19]
P. Gardner, S. Maffeis, and G. D. Smith. 2012. Towards a program logic for JavaScript. In Proceedings of POPL-39. 31--44.
[20]
J.-Y. Girard and Y. Lafont. 1987. Linear logic and lazy computation. In Proceedings of TAPSOFT'87. Springer-Verlag, 52--66.
[21]
A. Gotsman, B. Cook, M. Parkinson, and V. Vafeiadis. 2009. Proving that non-blocking algorithms don't block. In Proceedings of POPL-36. ACM, 16--28.
[22]
S. Ishtiaq and P. W. O'Hearn. 2001. BI as an assertion language for mutable data structures. In Proceedings of POPL-28. ACM, 14--26.
[23]
E. Jipsen. 1992. Computer aided investigations of relation algebras. Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
[24]
M. Kanovich. 1992. Horn programming in linear logic is NP-complete. In Proceedings of LICS-7. IEEE Computer Society, 200--210.
[25]
M. Kanovich. 1995. The direct simulation of Minsky machines in linear logic. In Advances in Linear Logic, London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series, vol. 222, Cambridge University Press, 123--145.
[26]
A. Kurucz, I. Nemeti, I. Sain, and A. Simon. 1995. Decidable and undecidable modal logics with a binary modality. J. Logic, Lang. Inf. 4, 191--206.
[27]
A. Kurucz. 1997. Decision problems in algebraic logic. Ph.D. dissertation, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
[28]
D. Larchey-Wendling and D. Galmiche. 2010. The undecidability of Boolean BI through phase semantics. In Proceedings of LICS-25. IEEE Computer Society, 140--149.
[29]
D. Larchey-Wendling and D. Galmiche. 2013. Nondeterministic phase semantics and the undecidability of Boolean BI. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 14, 1, 6.
[30]
M. Minsky. 1967. Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
[31]
T. Murata. 1989. Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proc. IEEE 77, 4, 541--580.
[32]
P. W. O'Hearn and D. J. Pym. 1999. The logic of bunched implications. Bull. Symb. Logic 5, 2, 215--244.
[33]
M. Parkinson and G. Bierman. 2008. Separation logic, abstraction and inheritance. In Proceedings of POPL-35. ACM, 75--86.
[34]
M. Parkinson, R. Bornat, and C. Calcagno. 2006. Variables as resource in Hoare logics. In Proceedings of LICS-21. IEEE Computer Society, 137--146.
[35]
J. L. Peterson. 1981. Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems. Prentice-Hall.
[36]
D. Pym. 2002. The Semantics and Proof Theory of the Logic of Bunched Implications. Applied Logic Series. Kluwer.
[37]
D. Pym, P. O'Hearn, and, H. Yang. 2004. Possible worlds and resources: The semantics of BI. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 315, 1, 257--305.
[38]
J. C. Reynolds. 2002. Separation logic: A logic for shared mutable data structures. In Proceedings of LICS-17. IEEE Computer Society, 55--74.
[39]
R. Statman. 1979. Intuitionistic propositional logic is polynomial-space complete. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 9, 67--72.
[40]
H. Yang, O. Lee, J. Berdine, C. Calcagno, B. Cook, D. Distefano, and P. O'Hearn. 2008. Scalable shape analysis for systems code. In Proceedings of CAV-20. Springer, 385--398.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of the ACM
Journal of the ACM  Volume 61, Issue 2
April 2014
206 pages
ISSN:0004-5411
EISSN:1557-735X
DOI:10.1145/2605175
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 24 April 2014
Accepted: 01 November 2013
Revised: 01 February 2013
Received: 01 April 2012
Published in JACM Volume 61, Issue 2

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Separation logic
  2. bunched logic
  3. memory models
  4. undecidability

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)76
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)14
Reflects downloads up to 25 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Full Access

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media