Skip to content
GitLab
Commit 131dd1a6 authored by benoit's avatar benoit
Browse files

space reduction = 16 pages

parent 52a0a42c
Expand all Hide whitespace changes
Inline Side-by-side
paper/Makefile
View file @ 131dd1a6
......@@ -4,11 +4,11 @@ SOURCES= code-tweetnacl.tex collection.bib conclusion.tex coq.tex highlevel.tex
PREVIOUS= csf-supplementary/previous.tex csf-supplementary/usenix-*.tex csf-supplementary/tweetverif-USENIX.pdf csf-supplementary/tweetverif-SP.pdf
tweetverif.pdf: $(SOURCES)
latex
pdflatex tweetverif.tex
bibtex tweetverif
pdflatex tweetverif.tex
pdflatex tweetverif.tex
./latexrun.py tweetverif.tex
# pdflatex tweetverif.tex
# bibtex tweetverif
# pdflatex tweetverif.tex
# pdflatex tweetverif.tex
csf-supplementary/previous.pdf: $(PREVIOUS)
make -C csf-supplementary
......
paper/code-tweetnacl.tex
View file @ 131dd1a6
......@@ -35,6 +35,6 @@ As follow, we provide the explanations of the above changes to TweetNaCl's code.
\item lines 79-82: VST does not support \TNaCle{for} loops over \TNaCle{i64}, we convert it into an \TNaCle{int}.\\
In the function calls of \TNaCle{sel25519}, the specifications requires the use of \TNaCle{int}, the value of \TNaCle{r} being either \TNaCle{0} or \TNaCle{1}, we consider this change safe.
\item Lines 90-101: The \TNaCle{for} loop does not add any benefits to the code. By removing it we simplify the source and the verification steps as we do not need to deal with pointer arithmetic. As a result, \TNaCle{x} can be limited to only 16 \TNaCle{i64}, \ie \TNaCle{gf}.
\item Lines 90-101: The \TNaCle{for} loop does not add any benefits to the code. By removing it we simplify the source and the verification steps as we do not need to deal with pointer arithmetic. Thus, \TNaCle{x} is limited to only 16 \TNaCle{i64}, \ie \TNaCle{gf}.
\end{itemize}
paper/conclusion.tex
View file @ 131dd1a6
......@@ -15,11 +15,11 @@ In our case we rely on:
used by Coq must be consistent in order to trust the proofs. As an axiom,
we assume that the functional extensionality is also consistent with that logic.
$$\forall x, f(x) = g(x) \implies f = g$$
\begin{lstlisting}[language=Coq,belowskip=-0.25 \baselineskip]
Lemma f_ext: forall (A B:Type),
forall (f g: A -> B),
(forall x, f(x) = g(x)) -> f = g.
\end{lstlisting}
% \begin{lstlisting}[language=Coq,belowskip=-0.25 \baselineskip]
% Lemma f_ext: forall (A B:Type),
% forall (f g: A -> B),
% (forall x, f(x) = g(x)) -> f = g.
% \end{lstlisting}
\item \textbf{Verifiable Software Toolchain}. This framework developed at
Princeton allows a user to prove that a Clight code matches pure Coq
......@@ -165,3 +165,4 @@ mathematical definitions as given in~\cite[Sec.~2]{Ber06}.
Therefore in addition to proving the mathematical correctness of TweetNaCl,
we also increases the trust of other works such as
\cite{zinzindohoue2017hacl,Erbsen2016SystematicSO} which rely on RFC~7748.
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\ No newline at end of file
paper/coq.tex
View file @ 131dd1a6
......@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@
\subsection{Montgomery Ladder}
\label{subsubsec:coq-ladder}
~
Generic definition of the ladder:
\begin{lstlisting}[language=Coq]
......@@ -91,7 +90,6 @@ end.
\subsection{RFC in Coq}
\label{subsubsec:RFC-Coq}
~
Instantiation of the Class \Coqe{Ops} with operations over \Z and modulo \p.
\begin{lstlisting}[language=Coq]
Definition modP (x:Z) : Z :=
......
paper/highlevel.tex
View file @ 131dd1a6
......@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ $a^2 - 4$ is not a square in $\K$, we prove the correctness of the ladder (\tref
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\include{tikz/highlevel1}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Overview of the proof of Montgomery ladder's correctness}
\label{tikz:ProofHighLevel1}
\end{figure}
......@@ -193,13 +194,13 @@ After having verified the group properties, it follows that the bijection is a g
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:bij-ecc}
Let $M_{a,b}$ be a Montgomery curve, define
%\vspace{-0.3em}
\vspace{-0.3em}
$$a' = \frac{3-a^2}{3b^2} \text{\ \ \ \ and\ \ \ \ } b' = \frac{2a^3 - 9a}{27b^3}.$$
then $E_{a',b'}$ is a Weierstra{\ss} curve, and the mapping
$\varphi : M_{a,b} \mapsto E_{a',b'}$ defined as:
%\vspace{-0.5em}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{align*}
\varphi(\Oinf_M) & = \Oinf_E \\
\varphi(\Oinf_M) & = \Oinf_E \\[-0.5ex]
\varphi( (x , y) ) & = \left( \frac{x}{b} + \frac{a}{3b} , \frac{y}{b} \right)
\end{align*}
is a group isomorphism between elliptic curves.
......@@ -255,7 +256,7 @@ Hypothesis mcu_no_square :
We define $\chi$ and $\chi_0$ to return the \xcoord of points on a curve.
\begin{dfn}
Let $\chi : M_{a,b}(\K) \mapsto \K \cup \{\infty\}$ and $\chi_0 : M_{a,b}(\K) \mapsto \K$ such that
%\vspace{-0.5em}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{align*}
\chi((x,y)) & = x, & \chi(\Oinf) & = \infty, & & \text{and} \\[-0.5ex]
\chi_0((x,y)) & = x, & \chi_0(\Oinf) & = 0.
......@@ -269,7 +270,7 @@ Using projective coordinates we prove the formula for differential addition.% (\
let $X_1, Z_1, X_2, Z_2, X_4, Z_4 \in \K$, such that $(X_1,Z_1) \neq (0,0)$,
$(X_2,Z_2) \neq (0,0)$, $X_4 \neq 0$ and $Z_4 \neq 0$.
Define
%\vspace{-0.5em}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{align*}
X_3 & = Z_4((X_1 - Z_1)(X_2+Z_2) + (X_1+Z_1)(X_2-Z_2))^2 \\[-0.5ex]
Z_3 & = X_4((X_1 - Z_1)(X_2+Z_2) - (X_1+Z_1)(X_2-Z_2))^2
......@@ -287,8 +288,8 @@ Similarly, we also prove the formula for point doubling.% (\lref{lemma:xDBL}).
Let $M_{a,b}$ be a Montgomery curve such that $a^2-4$ is not a square in \K, and
let $X_1, Z_1 \in \K$, such that $(X_1,Z_1) \neq (0,0)$. Define
\begin{align*}
c & = (X_1 + Z_1)^2 - (X_1 - Z_1)^2 \\
X_3 & = (X_1 + Z_1)^2(X_1-Z_1)^2 \\
c & = (X_1 + Z_1)^2 - (X_1 - Z_1)^2 \\[-0.5ex]
X_3 & = (X_1 + Z_1)^2(X_1-Z_1)^2 \\[-0.5ex]
Z_3 & = c\Big((X_1 + Z_1)^2+\frac{a-2}{4}\times c\Big),
\end{align*}
then for any point $P_1$ in $M_{a,b}(\K)$ such that $X_1/Z_1 = \chi(P_1)$,
......@@ -355,6 +356,7 @@ The white tiles are definitions while green tiles are important lemmas and theor
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\include{tikz/highlevel2}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Proof dependencies for the correctness of X25519.}
\label{tikz:ProofHighLevel2}
\end{figure}
......@@ -514,12 +516,12 @@ We then specialize the basic operations in order to speed up the verification
of formulas by using rewrite rules:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
(a,0) + (b,0) &= (a+b, 0)\\
(a,0) + (b,0) &= (a+b, 0)\\[-0.5ex]
(a, 0)^{-1} &= (a^{-1}, 0)
\end{split}
\qquad
\begin{split}
(a,0) \cdot (b,0) &= (a \cdot b, 0)\\
(a,0) \cdot (b,0) &= (a \cdot b, 0)\\[-0.5ex]
(0,a)^{-1} &= (0,(2\cdot a)^{-1})
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
......@@ -558,16 +560,16 @@ We now study the case of the scalar multiplication and show similar proofs.
\label{lemma:proj}
For all $n \in \N$, for all point $P\in\F{p}\times\F{p}$ on the curve
$M_{486662,1}(\F{p})$ (respectively on the quadratic twist $M_{486662,2}(\F{p})$), we have
%\vspace{-0.3em}
\vspace{-0.3em}
\begin{align*}
P & \in M_{486662,1}(\F{p}) & \implies \varphi_c(n \cdot P) & = n \cdot \varphi_c(P), & & \text{and} \\
P & \in M_{486662,1}(\F{p}) & \implies \varphi_c(n \cdot P) & = n \cdot \varphi_c(P), & & \text{and} \\[-0.5ex]
P & \in M_{486662,2}(\F{p}) & \implies \varphi_t(n \cdot P) & = n \cdot \varphi_t(P).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
Notice that
%\vspace{-0.5em}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{align*}
\forall P \in M_{486662,1}(\F{p}), & & \psi(\chi_0(\varphi_c(P))) & = \chi_0(P), & & \text{and} \\
\forall P \in M_{486662,1}(\F{p}), & & \psi(\chi_0(\varphi_c(P))) & = \chi_0(P), & & \text{and} \\[-0.5ex]
\forall P \in M_{486662,2}(\F{p}), & & \psi(\chi_0(\varphi_t(P))) & = \chi_0(P).
\end{align*}
......
paper/latexrun.py 0 → 100755
View file @ 131dd1a6
This diff is collapsed.
paper/lowlevel.tex
View file @ 131dd1a6
......@@ -162,7 +162,8 @@ are consumed and VST will expect a third memory section (\texttt{a}) which does
Examples of such cases are illustrated in \fref{tikz:MemSame}.
\begin{figure}[h]%
\centering%
\include{tikz/memory_same_sh}%
\include{tikz/memory_same_sh}%
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Aliasing and Separation Logic}%
\label{tikz:MemSame}%
\end{figure}
......@@ -181,19 +182,19 @@ In the proof of our specification, we do a case analysis over $k$ when needed.
This solution does not cover all the possible cases of aliasing over 3 pointers
(\eg \texttt{o} = \texttt{a} = \texttt{b}) but it is enough to satisfy our needs.
\subheading{Improving verification speed.}
To make the verification the smoothest, the Coq formal definition of the function
should be as close as possible to the C implementation.
Attempting to write definitions more ``elegantly'', for example through the extensive
use of recursion, is often counter-productive because such definitions increase the
amount of proofs required for, \eg bounds checking or loop invariants.
In order to further speed-up the verification process, to prove the specification
\TNaCle{crypto_scalarmult}, we only need the specification of the subsequently
called functions (\eg \TNaCle{M}).
This provide with multiple advantages: the verification by Coq can be
done in parallel and multiple users can work on proving different functions at
the same time.
% \subheading{Improving verification speed.}
% To make the verification the smoothest, the Coq formal definition of the function
% should be as close as possible to the C implementation.
% Attempting to write definitions more ``elegantly'', for example through the extensive
% use of recursion, is often counter-productive because such definitions increase the
% amount of proofs required for, \eg bounds checking or loop invariants.
% In order to further speed-up the verification process, to prove the specification
% \TNaCle{crypto_scalarmult}, we only need the specification of the subsequently
% called functions (\eg \TNaCle{M}).
% This provide with multiple advantages: the verification by Coq can be
% done in parallel and multiple users can work on proving different functions at
% the same time.
% We proved all intermediate functions.
......
paper/preliminaries.tex
View file @ 131dd1a6
......@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ $(X : Z)$, with $x = X/Z$; the point at infinity is represented as $(1:0)$.
See \sref{subsec:ECC-projective} for more details.
We define the operation:
\begin{align*}
\texttt{xDBL\&ADD} & : (x_{Q-P}, (X_P:Z_P), (X_Q:Z_Q)) \mapsto \\
\texttt{xDBL\&ADD} & : (x_{Q-P}, (X_P:Z_P), (X_Q:Z_Q)) \mapsto \\[-0.5ex]
& ((X_{2 \cdot P}:Z_{2 \cdot P}), (X_{P + Q}:Z_{P + Q}))
\end{align*}
......
paper/proofs.tex
View file @ 131dd1a6
......@@ -17,15 +17,14 @@ The actual proofs can be found in the \textbf{\texttt{proofs}} folder in which
the reader will find the directories \textbf{\texttt{spec}} and \textbf{\texttt{vst}}.
\subheading{\texttt{packages/}}
This folder makes sure that we are using the correct version of
Verifiable Software Toolchain (version 2.0) and CompCert (version 3.2).
Additionally it pins the version of the elliptic curves library by Bartzia and Strub
and allows us to use the theorem of quadratic reciprocity.
This folder provides all the required Coq dependencies: ssreflect (1.7),
VST (2.0), CompCert (3.2), the elliptic curves library by Bartzia \& Strub,
and the theorem of quadratic reciprocity.
\subheading{\texttt{proofs/spec/}}
In this folder the reader will find multiple levels of implementation of X25519.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{\texttt{Libs/}} contains basic libraries and tools to help use
\item \textbf{\texttt{Libs/}} contains basic libraries and tools to help
reason with lists and decidable procedures.
\item \textbf{\texttt{ListsOp/}} defines operators on list such as
\Coqe{ZofList} and related lemmas using \eg \VSTe{Forall}.
......
paper/rfc.tex
View file @ 131dd1a6
......@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ The encoding from integers to bytes is defined in a similar way.
%XXX-Peter: Again I'm confused... why are there two \rightarrows?
%XXX-Benoit it is the functional view of arguments and partial functions. It is called Currying.
\end{dfn}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=Coq,aboveskip=0pt,belowskip=1pt]
\begin{lstlisting}[language=Coq,aboveskip=1pt,belowskip=1pt]
Fixpoint ListofZn_fp {n:Z} (a:Z) (f:nat) : list Z :=
match f with
| 0%nat => []
......@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ Definition ListofZ32 {n:Z} (a:Z) : list Z :=
\end{lstlisting}
In order to increase the trust in our formalization, we prove that
\Coqe{ListofZ32} and \Coqe{ZofList} are inverse to each other.
\begin{lstlisting}[language=Coq,aboveskip=0pt,belowskip=1pt]
\begin{lstlisting}[language=Coq,aboveskip=1pt,belowskip=1pt]
Lemma ListofZ32_ZofList_Zlength: forall (l:list Z),
Forall (fun x => 0 <= x < 2^n) l ->
Zlength l = 32 ->
......
Supports Markdown
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment