[WIP] SIF #394
Draft
[WIP] SIF #394
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
What is missing is the `AtomicDecl` and `InternalDecl` event in `io-spec-atomic-events.gobra` and `io-spec-abstract-transitions.gobra`.
Pre- and postconditions still need to be "lifted" to the atomic and internal events. `WriteTo` may also need a spec
More data needs to be asserted low, of course. `DeclEvent` needs to be verified once slayers problem is worked out
`DeclEvent` was removed as it just copied `AtomicDecl`. It seems that we don't need to perform that much translation of the pre- and postconditions as the other events.
In particular, add postconditions asserting that results are low wherever it is applicable, in order to make the contracts more precise. This is in anticipation of needing this information for further verification. Note that I still have some concerns regarding the pre- and postconditions of `fmt.Sprintf` and `serrors.New` which are elaborated in comments.
As for private/topology/underlay, I have added these to make the contracts more precise, as I anticipate I will need this for further verification Note that at the moment, we still need a lot of `assume` statements due to Gobra issues #831 and #832. Also, `LinkType.String` doesn't have an appropriate postcondition yet, as I couldn't assert (nor assume) low(err.Error()) for a low `err`.
I forgot to require all elements of `v` to be low. This also required the addition of another assumption in `private/topology/underlay`, as Gobra can't infer that all elements of a slice created from low values must be low (cf. Gobra issue #835)
There still remain a lot of assumptions due to Gobra issues
Most notably sensitivity requirements in interfaces have been made uniform
Verify `private/topology/underlay`
Verify `private/topology`
Verify `pkg/addr`
As `UDPConn` is "abstract" (i.e. only defined using `PrivateField`), the issue here is not of not being able to implement `IsLow`, only that we still need to add `hyper` to it. Update comment accordingly.
Verify `private/underlay/conn`
Verify `pkg/slayers/path/empty`
Verify `pkg/slayers/path`
Verify `pkg/slayers/path/epic`
Verify `pkg/slayers/path/onehop`
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PR for verifying secure information flow for the VerifiedSCION router; see #409 for more information.
TODOs (besides what is mentioned in the issue mentioned above)
path.AbsMac == io.AbsMacinrouter/io-spec-atomic-events.gobra.path.AbsMacinio/io-spec.gobrasince since importingpkg/slayers/pathwould lead to a cyclical import. Thus, at the moment, I define anotherAbsMacfunction inio/tmp_defs.gobraand assume that this performs the same computation.pkg/slayers/path/io_msgterm_spec.gobratoio.