97 points · 25 comments · 1 day ago · mfornet
github.comAI is now writing tons of the code that gets pushed to production. As code generation gets cheaper, verification becomes the bottleneck. We believe in a future where every piece of software comes with a mathematical proof that it does what its author intended - in doing so, eliminating many classes of exploits. Talos is part of the foundation for that.
Talos provides a Wasm interpreter optimized for reasoning at the binary level, together with a weakest-precondition calculus layer for proving properties about programs. Because we reason directly about WebAssembly, any language with a Wasm backend is in scope: Rust, C++, Go, C, Swift, Kotlin, Zig, C#, and many more.
To make this possible, we use Lean: a programming language and theorem prover that lets you both write software and mathematically prove that it's correct - all in one system. That's what lets Talos double as both an executable interpreter and the formal object Lean reasons about. Lean also integrates with modern AI proving tools, discharging goals automatically via both proof search and direct evaluation.
To see Talos in action check out a proof for Stein's GCD algorithm, implemented in the popular Rust crate num-integer: https://github.com/cajal-technologies/talos/blob/main/progra....
Our roadmap:
- Full Wasm coverage by first passing the official W3C testsuite, then later verifying against SpecTec (formal Wasm spec) - Arbitrary crate verification - any Rust crate that compiles to Wasm should be in scope - Building our proof library codelib, to make verifying increasingly complex programs tractable
We would love to hear the community’s feedback on Talos and comments on the state of formal verification right now. Contributions are also welcome!
keithwinstein
himata4113
jacobjwalters
quietusmuris
lukerj00
The core bet is that Wasm is a good verification target (close to compiled artifacts, many languages target it), and Lean is the right place to do verification.
Super interested in hearing from people working with Lean, compilers or other Wasm verification frameworks (eg Iris-Wasm).
snthpy
Actually i think it's the "for" in the title that's at fault. The repo title is quite clear, but the submission title is ambiguous to me.
BobbyTables2
oulipo2
sohex
I'm also curious -- are you just implementing the Wasm binary and text parsing, validation algorithm, and execution semantics in Lean from scratch by reading the English prose in the spec document, and then checking it against the spec tests and the SpecTec description? Or do you have some sort of automated (classical or LLMy) transformation happening? (One could imagine directly transforming the SpecTec, or the OCaml reference interpreter, into Lean... but it sounds like you're not doing that? I think one needs to be a little careful here because e.g. at this point some of the English prose and reference interpreter implementation, and I think maybe some of the tests, are autogenerated from the SpecTec.) Which parts (if any) are outside the scope of the formalization? E.g. for WasmCert-Isabelle, I believe the binary and definitely the text parsing, and I think some of the arithmetic ops, are not covered.
How are you modeling the explicit sources of nondeterminism in the Wasm execution semantics? E.g. NaN representation, {memory., table.}grow, host calls, stack exhaustion, relaxed SIMD instructions, etc., and that's all before we get to the threads proposal? Because if the goal is to prove programs correct, one risk is that I prove my program correct against your Wasm interpreter (which maybe makes certain choices that aren't determined by the spec), and then I run it against another fully-conforming interpreter in the wild and it behaves incorrectly.