Parametricity versus the universal type

Devriese, Dominique; Patrignani, Marco; Piessens, Frank

doi:10.1145/3158126

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It would be interesting to extend their simply-typed se ing to parametric polymorphism, and study the interplay of parametricity and graduality when casts, and possibly seals, are explicit as in the work of Neis et al (2009) on parametricity in a non-parametric language. Devriese et al (2018) disprove a conjecture by Pierce and Sumii (2000) according to which the compilation of System F to an untyped language with dynamic sealing is fully abstract, i.e. preserves contextual equivalences.…”

Section: Related Worksupporting

confidence: 55%

“…is clearly making it "less static" (recall §2.3). Dually, if one sticks to the natural notion of precision, as adopted by both GSF and CSA, and justi ed by the AGT interpretation, reconciliation might come from considering other forms of parametricity, or perhaps less exible gradual language designs (Devriese et al 2018). Currently, it seems that the incompatibility of the dynamic gradual guarantee with parametricity has to be understood, in conjunction with a similar observation regarding noninterference (Toro et al 2018), as hinting towards further re ned criteria for semantically-rich gradual typing.…”

Section: Parametricity Vs Dynamic Gradual Guaranteementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gradual parametricity, revisited

Toro

Labrada

Tanter

2019

Proc. ACM Program. Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bringing the bene ts of gradual typing to a language with parametric polymorphism like System F, while preserving relational parametricity, has proven extremely challenging: rst a empts were formulated a decade ago, and several designs were recently proposed. Among other issues, these proposals can however signal parametricity errors in unexpected situations, and improperly handle type instantiations when imprecise types are involved. ese observations further suggest that existing polymorphic cast calculi are not well suited for supporting a gradual counterpart of System F. Consequently, we revisit the challenge of designing a gradual language with explicit parametric polymorphism, exploring the extent to which the Abstracting Gradual Typing methodology helps us derive such a language, GSF. We present the design and metatheory of GSF, and provide a reference implementation. In addition to avoiding the uncovered semantic issues, GSF satis es all the expected properties of a gradual parametric language, save for one property: the dynamic gradual guarantee, which was le as conjecture in all prior work, is here proven to be simply incompatible with parametricity. We nevertheless establish a weaker property that allows us to disprove several claims about gradual free theorems, clarifying the kind of reasoning supported by gradual parametricity.

show abstract

Section: Related Worksupporting

confidence: 55%

Section: Parametricity Vs Dynamic Gradual Guaranteementioning

confidence: 99%

Gradual parametricity, revisited

Toro

Labrada

Tanter

2019

Proc. ACM Program. Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The key novelty of their work is to use dynamic sealing to enforce parametricity. Devriese et al [10] proved that embedding of System F terms into λB is not fully abstract. Igarashi et al [14] also studied integrating gradual typing with parametric polymorphism.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consistent Subtyping for All

Xie

Oliveira

2018

Programming Languages and Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Consistent subtyping is employed in some gradual type systems to validate type conversions. The original definition by Siek and Taha serves as a guideline for designing gradual type systems with subtyping. Polymorphic typesà la System F also induce a subtyping relation that relates polymorphic types to their instantiations. However Siek and Taha's definition is not adequate for polymorphic subtyping. The first goal of this paper is to propose a generalization of consistent subtyping that is adequate for polymorphic subtyping, and subsumes the original definition by Siek and Taha. The new definition of consistent subtyping provides novel insights with respect to previous polymorphic gradual type systems, which did not employ consistent subtyping. The second goal of this paper is to present a gradually typed calculus for implicit (higher-rank) polymorphism that uses our new notion of consistent subtyping. We develop both declarative and (bidirectional) algorithmic versions for the type system. We prove that the new calculus satisfies all static aspects of the refined criteria for gradual typing, which are mechanically formalized using the Coq proof assistant.

show abstract

“…Even as it stands though, our proof technique is simple and scalable compared to previous full abstraction proofs. While many proof techniques have been previously investigated [3,5,10,11,24,29,40,61], fully abstract compilation proofs are notoriously difficult, even for very simple languages, with apparently simple conjectures surviving for decades before being finally settled [23]. The proofs of Juglaret et al [43] are no exception: while their compiler is similar to the one in §4, their full abstraction-based proof is significantly more complex than our RSC DC MD proof.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 82%

When Good Components Go Bad

Abate

Amorim

Blanco

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a new formal criterion for evaluating secure compilation schemes for unsafe languages, expressing end-to-end security guarantees for software components that may become compromised after encountering undefined behavior-for example, by accessing an array out of bounds. Our criterion is the first to model dynamic compromise in a system of mutually distrustful components with clearly specified privileges. It articulates how each component should be protected from all the others-in particular, from components that have encountered undefined behavior and become compromised. Each component receives secure compilation guarantees-in particular, its internal invariants are protected from compromised componentsup to the point when this component itself becomes compromised, after which we assume an attacker can take complete control and use this component's privileges to attack other components. More precisely, a secure compilation chain must ensure that a dynamically compromised component cannot break the safety properties of the system at the target level any more than an arbitrary attackercontrolled component (with the same interface and privileges, but without undefined behaviors) already could at the source level. To illustrate the model, we construct a secure compilation chain for a small unsafe language with buffers, procedures, and components, targeting a simple abstract machine with built-in compartmentalization. We give a careful proof (mostly machine-checked in Coq) that this compiler satisfies our secure compilation criterion. Finally, we show that the protection guarantees offered by the compartmentalized abstract machine can be achieved at the machine-code level using either software fault isolation or a tagbased reference monitor.

show abstract

Parametricity versus the universal type

Cited by 14 publications

References 48 publications

Gradual parametricity, revisited

Gradual parametricity, revisited

Consistent Subtyping for All

When Good Components Go Bad

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About