Hi, I have a few questions about this challenge.

Missing safety requirement

I believe merge_down is missing a requirement in the SAFETY comment. Specifically, dst.sub(1) is called, but the SAFETY comment does not guarantee that the resulting pointer remains within the same allocated object. This is not a significant issue since it's a private function, and when it is called, dst.sub(1) is indeed within the same allocated object.

EDIT: I've opened the following issue: rust-lang#135984.

Can the absence of "invalid values" be verified with a separate tool?

"Invalid values" refer to the following scenario: If the input array is [1, 2, 3] and the output array is [1, 1, 1], then although the output array is sorted, an "invalid value" is created. In this example, it is not a safety concern, but it could become one for non-Copy types.

I believe this requires a separate tool because verifying with kani that the multiset (like a set but counting repetitions) of inputs matches the multiset of outputs is extremely slow. For example, sort4_stable already takes approximately 6 minutes to verify.

How arbitrary does `is_less` have to be when verifying correctness?

To verify safety, since the sorting methods are safe and are called with a user-provided is_less, verification has to be done with a function that returns a random boolean (kani::any()).

However, what is_less should be used when verifying correctness? For example, is it sufficient to verify correctness only for the default ordering of integers? Alternatively, should verification be conducted on a custom type with 32 distinct values, allowing for testing of any weak total ordering on these 32 values? This second approach is likely to perform poorly.

Additionally, what types T should be tested?

What is the limit for memory and runtime?

I need to use stub_verified on sort13_optimal because the code that kani analyzes becomes too large when verifying the sorting methods. However, verifying sort13_optimal is very resource-intensive due to the large number of statements it contains, as explained in this comment. It requires 50 GB of memory and takes 40 minutes (38 GB of this is swap memory, which might explain the lengthy runtime on my laptop).

Missing safety requirement

Can the absence of "invalid values" be verified with a separate tool?

How arbitrary does is_less have to be when verifying correctness?

What is the limit for memory and runtime?

How arbitrary does `is_less` have to be when verifying correctness?

Challenge 8: Contracts for SmallSort #56

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions

Challenge 8: Contracts for `SmallSort` #56