|
| 1 | +======================================================================== |
| 2 | +Tactic: ``if`` |
| 3 | +======================================================================== |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +In EasyCrypt, the ``if`` tactic is a way of reasoning about program(s) |
| 6 | +that use conditionals. When a program begins with an if statement, |
| 7 | +execution will follow one path if the condition is ``true`` and another |
| 8 | +path if it is ``false``. The tactic says that to prove the program is |
| 9 | +correct, you must consider both cases: you assume the condition holds |
| 10 | +and show that the *then* branch establishes the desired result, and you |
| 11 | +assume the condition does not hold and show that the *else* branch |
| 12 | +establishes the same result. EasyCrypt allows you to apply this rule |
| 13 | +only when the program starts with an if, so the proof can split immediately |
| 14 | +from the initial state. If the conditional appears deeper in the code, |
| 15 | +you must first use the ``seq`` tactic to separate the earlier commands |
| 16 | +from the conditional. |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +.. contents:: |
| 19 | + :local: |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 22 | +Variant: ``if`` (HL) |
| 23 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +.. ecproof:: |
| 26 | + :title: Hoare logic example |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | + require import AllCore. |
| 29 | + |
| 30 | + module M = { |
| 31 | + proc f(x : int) = { |
| 32 | + var y : int; |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | + if (x < 0) { |
| 35 | + y <- -x; |
| 36 | + } else { |
| 37 | + y <- x; |
| 38 | + } |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | + return y; |
| 41 | + } |
| 42 | + }. |
| 43 | + |
| 44 | + pred p : glob M. |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | + lemma L : hoare[M.f : p (glob M) ==> 0 <= res]. |
| 47 | + proof. |
| 48 | + proc. |
| 49 | + (*$*) if. |
| 50 | + (* First goal: (x < 0) holds *) |
| 51 | + - wp. skip. smt(). |
| 52 | + (* Second goal: (x < 0) does not hold *) |
| 53 | + - wp. skip. smt(). |
| 54 | + qed. |
| 55 | +
|
| 56 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 57 | +Variant: ``if`` (pRHL) |
| 58 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 59 | + |
| 60 | +In probabilistic relational Hoare logic, the ``if`` tactic is applied |
| 61 | +in a lock-step manner, meaning that the two programs being compared must |
| 62 | +proceed through the conditional in sync. This requires that their guards |
| 63 | +evaluate to the same boolean value in the related states, so that either |
| 64 | +both programs take the *then* branch or both take the *else* branch. |
| 65 | + |
| 66 | +As a result, using the ``if`` tactic involves establishing that the two |
| 67 | +conditions are equal under the current relational invariant before |
| 68 | +splitting into the two synchronized cases. |
| 69 | + |
| 70 | +Although synchronization ensures both guards take the same value, the |
| 71 | +implementation splits only on the left guard (rather than explicitly |
| 72 | +stating both are true or both are false). |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | +.. ecproof:: |
| 75 | + :title: Relational Hoare logic example (2-sided) |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | + require import AllCore. |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | + module M = { |
| 80 | + proc f(x : int) = { |
| 81 | + var y : int; |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | + if (x < 0) { |
| 84 | + y <- -x; |
| 85 | + } else { |
| 86 | + y <- x; |
| 87 | + } |
| 88 | + |
| 89 | + return y; |
| 90 | + } |
| 91 | + }. |
| 92 | + |
| 93 | + lemma L : equiv[M.f ~ M.f: x{1} = x{2} ==> res{1} = res{2}]. |
| 94 | + proof. |
| 95 | + proc. |
| 96 | + (*$*) if. |
| 97 | + (* First goal: we prove that the guards are in sync. *) |
| 98 | + - smt(). |
| 99 | + (* First goal: (x < 0) holds *) |
| 100 | + - wp; skip. smt(). |
| 101 | + (* Second goal: (x < 0) does not hold *) |
| 102 | + - wp; skip. smt(). |
| 103 | + qed. |
| 104 | +
|
| 105 | + |
| 106 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 107 | +Variant: ``if {side}`` (pRHL) |
| 108 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 109 | + |
| 110 | +In the one-sided ``if`` tactic used in pRHL, the user specifies whether |
| 111 | +the conditional reasoning should be applied to the left or the right |
| 112 | +program. The tactic then performs a case analysis only on the ``if`` |
| 113 | +statement at the top of that chosen program, generating separate goals |
| 114 | +for the ``true`` and ``false`` branches on that side. Unlike the lock-step |
| 115 | +relational ``if`` tactic, no synchronization of guards is required, and |
| 116 | +the other program is not constrained to take the same branch or even to |
| 117 | +have a similar structure. |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +.. ecproof:: |
| 120 | + :title: Relational Hoare logic example (1-sided) |
| 121 | + |
| 122 | + require import AllCore. |
| 123 | + |
| 124 | + module M = { |
| 125 | + proc f(x : int) = { |
| 126 | + var y : int; |
| 127 | + |
| 128 | + if (x < 0) { |
| 129 | + y <- -x; |
| 130 | + } else { |
| 131 | + y <- x; |
| 132 | + } |
| 133 | + |
| 134 | + return y; |
| 135 | + } |
| 136 | + |
| 137 | + proc g(x : int) = { |
| 138 | + return `|x|; |
| 139 | + } |
| 140 | + }. |
| 141 | + |
| 142 | + lemma L : equiv[M.f ~ M.g: x{1} = x{2} ==> res{1} = res{2}]. |
| 143 | + proof. |
| 144 | + proc. |
| 145 | + (*$*) if{1}. |
| 146 | + (* First goal: (x < 0) holds (left program) *) |
| 147 | + - wp; skip. smt(). |
| 148 | + (* Second goal: (x < 0) does not hold (left program) *) |
| 149 | + - wp; skip. smt(). |
| 150 | + qed. |
| 151 | + |
| 152 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 153 | +Variant: ``if`` (pHL) |
| 154 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 155 | + |
| 156 | +In probabilistic Hoare logic, the ``if`` tactic behaves much like in |
| 157 | +standard Hoare logic, except that the postcondition is expressed in terms |
| 158 | +of a probability bound. Since the if statement is the first command of |
| 159 | +the program, its guard is evaluated immediately in the initial state and |
| 160 | +therefore deterministically takes either the ``true`` or the ``false`` |
| 161 | +value, with probability 1. As a result, the program execution splits into |
| 162 | +one of the two branches without introducing any additional probabilistic |
| 163 | +choice at the level of control flow, and the probability bound is preserved |
| 164 | +by reasoning separately about each branch under the corresponding |
| 165 | +assumption on the guard. |
| 166 | + |
| 167 | +.. ecproof:: |
| 168 | + :title: Probabilistic Hoare logic example |
| 169 | + |
| 170 | + require import AllCore. |
| 171 | + |
| 172 | + module M = { |
| 173 | + proc f(x : int) = { |
| 174 | + var y : int; |
| 175 | + |
| 176 | + if (x < 0) { |
| 177 | + y <- -x; |
| 178 | + } else { |
| 179 | + y <- x; |
| 180 | + } |
| 181 | + |
| 182 | + return y; |
| 183 | + } |
| 184 | + }. |
| 185 | + |
| 186 | + lemma L : phoare[M.f : true ==> 0 <= res] = 1%r. |
| 187 | + proof. |
| 188 | + proc. |
| 189 | + (*$*) if. |
| 190 | + (* First goal: (x < 0) holds *) |
| 191 | + - wp; skip. smt(). |
| 192 | + (* Second goal: (x < 0) does not hold *) |
| 193 | + - wp; skip. smt(). |
| 194 | + qed. |
| 195 | +
|
| 196 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 197 | +Variant: ``if`` (eHL) |
| 198 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 199 | + |
| 200 | +.. ecproof:: |
| 201 | + :title: Expectation Hoare logic example |
| 202 | + |
| 203 | + require import AllCore Xreal. |
| 204 | + |
| 205 | + module M = { |
| 206 | + proc f(x : int) = { |
| 207 | + var y : int; |
| 208 | + |
| 209 | + if (x < 0) { |
| 210 | + y <- -x; |
| 211 | + } else { |
| 212 | + y <- x; |
| 213 | + } |
| 214 | + |
| 215 | + return y; |
| 216 | + } |
| 217 | + }. |
| 218 | + |
| 219 | + lemma L : ehoare[M.f : 0%xr ==> (0 <= res)%xr]. |
| 220 | + proof. |
| 221 | + proc. |
| 222 | + (*$*) if. |
| 223 | + (* First goal: (x < 0) holds *) |
| 224 | + - wp; skip. admit. (* FIXME *) |
| 225 | + (* Second goal: (x < 0) does not hold *) |
| 226 | + - wp; skip. admit. (* FIXME *) |
| 227 | + qed. |
0 commit comments