[Imprint][Data Privacy Statement][E-Mail]



View long theorem info. View the proof. Back to main index. View the specification. View theorem base summary, View theorem base listing, the used properties by spec, the dependency list, the symbol table,

Proof step 409 from proof inv-rename-overwrite-reparent (previous step)

m11 + 1 = fs0[ri0[inodekey(m8)]].nlink, ¬ fs0[ri0[inodekey(m8)]].directory ↔ ¬ fs0[ri0[inodekey(m5)]].directory, fs0[ri0[dentrykey(m, str)]] = dentrynode(key1, m5), fs0[ri0[inodekey(m0)]] = inodenode(key0, md1, true, m9, m12, m13), fs0[ri0[dentrykey(m0, str0)]] = dentrynode(key3, m8), replay-log(log0, fs0, fi ⊖ fo) = ri0 ⊖ ro, ro.inodes?, fo.inodes?, file-node-cons(fs0, ri0), log-cons(log0, fs0), orphans-cons(fs0, ri0, ro), replay-cons-strong(fs0, ri0, ro, fi, fo, log0), replay-safe(log0, fs0, fi ⊖ fo), ri-cons(ri0, fs0), ri-inj(ri0), ri-inj(fi), ubifs-cons(fs0, ri0, ro, fi, fo, log0), adr3 ∈ ((ri0 ⊖ ro) -- dentrykey(m, str))[dentrykey(m0, str0), adr2], ri0[inodekey(m)] ∈ fs0, ri0[dentrykey(m0, str0)] ∈ fs0, inodekey(m0) ∈ ri0, inodekey(m) ∈ ri0, ri0[dentrykey(m, str)] ∈ fs0, inodekey(m8) ∈ ri0, dentrykey(m0, str0) ∈ ri0, inodekey(m5) ∈ ri0, dentrykey(m, str) ∈ ri0, ri0[inodekey(m0)] ∈ fs0, fs0[ri0[inodekey(m8)]].directory → dentrykeys(inodekey(m8), ri0) = ∅, ¬ fs0[ri0[inodekey(m5)]].directory ∧ ¬ boolvar1 ∨ fs0[ri0[inodekey(m8)]].directory ∧ boolvar1 ∧ m7 = fs0[ri0[inodekey(m8)]].size, ¬ fs0[ri0[inodekey(m5)]].directory ∧ ¬ boolvar3 ∨ fs0[ri0[inodekey(m5)]].directory ∧ boolvar3 ∧ m4 = fs0[ri0[inodekey(m5)]].size, m9 ≠ 0 ∨ m0 = ROOT_INO, m10 ≠ 0 ∨ m = ROOT_INO ⊦ adr1 = adr5, adr1 = adr4, adr1 = adr3, adr1 = adr2, adr2 = adr5, adr2 = adr4, adr2 = adr3, adr3 = adr5, adr3 = adr4, adr4 = adr5, m = 0, m0 = 0, m0 = m, m11 = 0, m5 = 0, m8 = 0, m8 = ROOT_INO, adr1 ∈ log0, adr2 ∈ log0, adr3 ∈ log0, adr4 ∈ log0, adr5 ∈ log0, adr5 ∈ (ri0 -- dentrykey(m, str))[dentrykey(m0, str0), adr2][inodekey(m), adr3][inodekey(m0), adr4], adr3 ∈ (ri0 -- dentrykey(m, str))[dentrykey(m0, str0), adr2], inodekey(m0) ∈ ro, inodekey(m) ∈ ro, adr1 ∈ fs0, adr2 ∈ fs0, adr3 ∈ fs0, adr4 ∈ fs0, adr5 ∈ fs0, adr2 ∈ ri0 -- dentrykey(m, str), adr4 ∈ (ri0 -- dentrykey(m, str))[dentrykey(m0, str0), adr2][inodekey(m), adr3]

Heuristic use patterns applied rule insert rewrite lemma

And obtained the following new goals

Rule argument

spec: store+set, inst: node-index name: Data-in seq: ⊦ adr ∈ ri ↔ (∃ key. key ∈ ri ∧ ri[key] = adr) subst: [adr, ri] → [adr3, ((ri0 ⊖ ro) -- dentrykey(m, str))[dentrykey(m0, str0), adr2]] flags: <all paths>

Additional information

Used simplifier rules: at-ri: ⊦ ri[key0, adr][key1] = (key0 = key1 ⊃ adr;ri[key1]);%at-del-ri: ⊦ (ri -- key0)[key1] = (key0 = key1 ⊃ (∅)[key0];ri[key1]);%in-ri: ⊦ key0 ∈ ri[key1, adr] ↔ key0 = key1 ∨ key0 ∈ ri;%elim-data: ⊦ key.data? ↔ (∃ ino, n. key = datakey(ino, n));% ⊦ key ∈ ri -- key0 ↔ key ≠ key0 ∧ key ∈ ri; (s)%⊦ key ∈ ri ⊖ ks ↔ key ∈ ri ∧ ¬ key ∈ ks ∧ (key.data? → ¬ inodekey(key.ino) ∈ ks); (ws)% ⊦ key ∈ ri ∧ ¬ key ∈ ks ∧ ¬ key.data? → (ri ⊖ ks)[key] = ri[key]; (s)% ⊦ key ∈ ri ∧ ri-cons(ri, fs) → ri[key] ∈ fs; (ss)% ⊦ datakey(m, m0) ≠ dentrykey(m1, str); (s)% ⊦ datakey(m, m0).ino = m; (s)%⊦ datakey(ino, n) ∈ ri ∧ ¬ datakey(ino, n) ∈ ks ∧ ¬ inodekey(ino) ∈ ks → (ri ⊖ ks)[datakey(ino, n)] = ri[datakey(ino, n)]; (s) Used terms: adr3, ((ri0 ⊖ ro) -- dentrykey(m, str))[dentrykey(m0, str0), adr2]