Reasoning about Weak Isolation Levels in Separation Logic
DOI
Consistency guarantees among concurrently executing transactions in local- and distributed systems, commonly referred to as isolation levels, have been formalized in a number of models. Thus far, no model can reason about executable implementations of databases or local transaction libraries providing weak isolation levels. Weak isolation levels are characterized by being highly concurrent and, unlike their stronger counterpart serializability, they are not equivalent to the consistency guarantees provided by a transaction library implemented using a global lock. Industrial-strength databases almost exclusively implement weak isolation levels as their default level. This calls for formalism as numerous bugs violating isolation have been detected in these databases. In this paper, we formalize three weak isolation levels in separation logic, namely read uncommitted, read committed, and snapshot isolation. We define modular separation logic specifications that are independent of the underlying transaction library implementation. Historically, isolation levels have been specified using examples of executions between concurrent transactions that are not allowed to occur, and we demonstrate that our specifications correctly prohibit such examples. To show that our specifications are realizable, we formally verify that an executable implementation of a key-value database running the multi-version concurrency control algorithm from the original snapshot isolation paper satisfies our specification of snapshot isolation. Moreover, we prove implications between the specifications—snapshot isolation implies read committed and read committed implies read uncommitted—and thus the verification effort of the database serves as proof that all of our specifications are realizable. All results are mechanized in the Rocq proof assistant on top of the Iris separation logic framework.
The bibtex source for this publication:
@article{10.1145/3747515,
author = {Alnor Mathiasen, Anders and Gondelman, L\'{e}on and Ducruet, L\'{e}on and Timany, Amin and Birkedal, Lars},
title = {Reasoning about Weak Isolation Levels in Separation Logic},
year = {2025},
issue_date = {August 2025},
publisher = {Association for Computing Machinery},
address = {New York, NY, USA},
volume = {9},
number = {ICFP},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3747515},
doi = {10.1145/3747515},
abstract = {Consistency guarantees among concurrently executing transactions in local- and distributed systems, commonly referred to as isolation levels, have been formalized in a number of models. Thus far, no model can reason about executable implementations of databases or local transaction libraries providing weak isolation levels. Weak isolation levels are characterized by being highly concurrent and, unlike their stronger counterpart serializability, they are not equivalent to the consistency guarantees provided by a transaction library implemented using a global lock. Industrial-strength databases almost exclusively implement weak isolation levels as their default level. This calls for formalism as numerous bugs violating isolation have been detected in these databases. In this paper, we formalize three weak isolation levels in separation logic, namely read uncommitted, read committed, and snapshot isolation. We define modular separation logic specifications that are independent of the underlying transaction library implementation. Historically, isolation levels have been specified using examples of executions between concurrent transactions that are not allowed to occur, and we demonstrate that our specifications correctly prohibit such examples. To show that our specifications are realizable, we formally verify that an executable implementation of a key-value database running the multi-version concurrency control algorithm from the original snapshot isolation paper satisfies our specification of snapshot isolation. Moreover, we prove implications between the specifications—snapshot isolation implies read committed and read committed implies read uncommitted—and thus the verification effort of the database serves as proof that all of our specifications are realizable. All results are mechanized in the Rocq proof assistant on top of the Iris separation logic framework.},
journal = {Proc. ACM Program. Lang.},
month = aug,
articleno = {246},
numpages = {35},
keywords = {Iris, Rocq, Transactions, concurrency, distributed systems, formal verification, isolation levels, transactional memory}
}