Higher-order concurrent separation logics, such as Iris, have been tremendously successful in verifying safety properties of concurrent programs. However, state-of-the-art attempts to verify liveness properties in such logics have so far either lacked modularity (the ability to compose specifications of independent modules), or they have been far too complex to mechanize in a proof assistant. In this work, we introduce Lawyer --- a mechanized program logic for modular verification of (fair) termination of concurrent programs. Lawyer draws inspiration from state-of-the-art approaches that use obligations for specifying and proving termination. However, unlike these approaches, which incorporate obligations by instrumenting the source code with erasable auxiliary code and state, Lawyer avoids such instrumentations. Instead, Lawyer incorporates obligations into the logic by embedding them into a purely logical labeled transition system that the program is shown to refine --- this makes Lawyer far more amenable to mechanization. We demonstrate the expressivity of Lawyer by verifying termination of a range of examples, including modular verification of a client program whose termination relies on correctness of a fair lock library, and (separately) proving that a ticket lock implementation implements that library's interface. To the best of our knowledge, Lawyer is the first mechanized program logic that supports modular higher-order impredicative liveness specifications of program modules. All the results that appear in the paper have been mechanized in the Rocq proof assistant on top of the Iris separation logic framework.
Namakonov et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: