Paper detail

The Supervisionary proof-checking kernel (or: a work-in-progress towards proof generating code)

Interactive theorem proving software is typically designed around a trusted proof-checking kernel, the sole system component capable of authenticating theorems. Untrusted automation procedures reside outside of the kernel, and drive it to deduce new theorems via an API. Kernel and untrusted automation are typically implemented in the same programming language -- the "meta-language" -- usually some functional programming language in the ML family. This strategy -- introduced by Milner in his LCF proof assistant -- is a reliability mechanism, aiming to ensure that any purported theorem produced by the system is indeed entailed by the theory within the logic. Changing tack, operating systems are also typically designed around a trusted kernel, a privileged component responsible for -- amongst other things -- mediating interaction betwixt user-space software and hardware. Untrusted processes interact with the system by issuing kernel system calls across a hardware privilege boundary. In this way, the operating system kernel supervises user-space processes. Though ostensibly very different, squinting, we see that the two kinds of kernel are tasked with solving the same task: enforcing system invariants in the face of unbounded interaction with untrusted code. Yet, the two solutions to solving this problem, employed by the respective kinds of kernel, are very different. In this abstract, we explore designing proof-checking kernels as supervisory software, where separation between kernel and untrusted code is enforced by privilege, not programming language module boundaries and type abstraction. We describe work on the Supervisionary proof-checking kernel, and briefly sketch its unique system interface. We then describe some potential uses of the Supervisionary kernel.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.