Repository navigation
New challenge: Verify the safety of BinaryHeap functions #747
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ | ||
| # Challenge 31: Verify the safety of `BinaryHeap` functions | ||
|
|
||
| - **Status:** *Open* | ||
| - **Solution:** *Option field to point to the PR that solved this challenge.* | ||
| - **Tracking Issue:** [#746](https://github.com/model-checking/verify-rust-std/issues/746) | ||
| - **Start date:** *2026/11/03* | ||
| - **Reward:** *TBD* | ||
|
|
||
| ------------------- | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Goal | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Nit: the template has
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. updated! i've added description & assumptions sections, and linked the path |
||
|
|
||
| Verify the safety of `BinaryHeap` functions in [binary_heap/mod.rs](https://github.com/model-checking/verify-rust-std/blob/main/library/alloc/src/collections/binary_heap/mod.rs). | ||
|
|
||
| ## Motivation | ||
|
|
||
| `BinaryHeap` is the priority queue of the standard library. To keep its elements in heap order, it moves them with raw pointer reads and copies, at positions chosen by comparing elements with `Ord`. `Ord` is safe code written by users and can return any result, so these moves must be safe even when the comparisons are inconsistent. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Description | ||
|
|
||
| This challenge verifies the safety of `BinaryHeap`'s sift functions, `PeekMut`, the `TrustedLen` sorted iterators, and the safe methods built on them. The sifts move elements through `Hole`, which reads one element out with `ptr::read`, copies others into the gap with `ptr::copy_nonoverlapping` at positions chosen by `Ord`, and writes the element back in `Drop`. `PeekMut` shrinks the length to 1 while a `&mut T` to the top element is out. | ||
|
|
||
| The other `unsafe impl`s on `IntoIter` (`TrustedFused`, `SourceIter`, `InPlaceIterable`, `AsVecIntoIter`) delegate to `vec::IntoIter` and are out of scope for this challenge. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Assumptions | ||
|
|
||
| * `Vec`'s implementation may be assumed correct, and its existing verified contracts may be reused. | ||
| * A panicking `Ord` is out of scope: solutions need not verify unwinding through `Drop for Hole`. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Success Criteria | ||
|
|
||
| Write and prove the contract for the safety of the following unsafe functions: | ||
|
|
||
| | Function | | ||
| |---------| | ||
| |Hole::new| | ||
| |Hole::get| | ||
| |Hole::move_to| | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Praise: the |
||
| |sift_up| | ||
| |sift_down_range| | ||
| |sift_down| | ||
| |sift_down_to_bottom| | ||
|
|
||
| Prove that the following implementations of the unsafe trait `TrustedLen` are correct, that is, that `size_hint` returns the exact number of remaining elements: | ||
|
|
||
| | Implementation | | ||
| |---------| | ||
| |TrustedLen for IntoIterSorted| | ||
| |TrustedLen for DrainSorted| | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Question:
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think it should be out of scope, which is now said explicitly in the description The other `unsafe impl`s on `IntoIter`
(`TrustedFused`, `SourceIter`, `InPlaceIterable`, `AsVecIntoIter`)
delegate to `vec::IntoIter` and are out of scope for this challenge. |
||
|
|
||
| Prove the absence of undefined behavior for the following safe abstractions: | ||
|
|
||
| | Function | | ||
| |---------| | ||
| |push| | ||
| |pop| | ||
| |peek_mut| | ||
| |PeekMut::deref| | ||
| |PeekMut::deref_mut| | ||
| |PeekMut::pop| | ||
| |PeekMut::refresh| | ||
| |Drop for PeekMut| | ||
| |rebuild| | ||
| |rebuild_tail| | ||
| |append| | ||
| |into_sorted_vec| | ||
| |From<Vec<T>>| | ||
| |IntoIterSorted::next| | ||
| |DrainSorted::next| | ||
| |Drop for Hole| | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Question:
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think it should be out of scope. I've added this to the list of assumptions: * A panicking `Ord` is out of scope: solutions need not verify unwinding through `Drop for Hole`. |
||
|
|
||
| The unsafe functions `from_raw_vec` and `as_mut_slice` require callers to keep the contents a max-heap. This is a correctness requirement, not a safety one, so the functions above must be safe even when the contents are not a max-heap. | ||
|
|
||
| The verification must be unbounded---it must hold for heaps of arbitrary length. | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Praise: worth keeping. |
||
|
|
||
| The verification must hold for generic type `T` (what satisfies this clause is to be decided in [issue #734](https://github.com/model-checking/verify-rust-std/issues/734)). | ||
|
|
||
| The verification must hold for any implementation of `Ord` for `T`, including ones that return inconsistent results. | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Praise: this is the requirement that gives the challenge its value; a model of |
||
|
|
||
| ### List of UBs | ||
|
|
||
| All proofs must automatically ensure the absence of the following undefined behaviors [ref](https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/blob/142b2ed77d33f37a9973772bd95e6144ed9dce43/src/behavior-considered-undefined.md): | ||
|
|
||
| * Accessing (loading from or storing to) a place that is dangling or based on a misaligned pointer. | ||
| * Invoking undefined behavior via compiler intrinsics. | ||
| * Reading from uninitialized memory except for padding or unions. | ||
| * Producing an invalid value | ||
|
Comment on lines
+81
to
+88
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Bug:
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. updated! the list of UBs now has this line: * Invoking undefined behavior via compiler intrinsics. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Note: All solutions to verification challenges need to satisfy the criteria established in the [challenge book](../general-rules.md) | ||
| in addition to the ones listed above. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I’ll renumber the file, title and SUMMARY.md entry to the next free number once this is ready to merge.