Towards Porting Operating Systems with Program Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The end of Moore’s Law has ushered in a diversity of hardware not seen in decades. Operating system (OS) (and system software) portability is accordingly becoming increasingly critical. Simultaneously, there has been tremendous progress in program synthesis. We set out to explore the feasibility of using modern program synthesis to generate the machine-dependent parts of an operating system. Our ultimate goal is to generate new ports automatically from descriptions of new machines. One of the issues involved is writing specifications, both for machine-dependent operating system functionality and for instruction set architectures. We designed two domain-specific languages: Alewife for machine-independent specifications of machine-dependent operating system functionality and Cassiopea for describing instruction set architecture semantics. Automated porting also requires an implementation. We developed a toolchain that, given an Alewife specification and a Cassiopea machine description, specializes the machine-independent specification to the target instruction set architecture and synthesizes an implementation in assembly language with a customized symbolic execution engine. Using this approach, we demonstrate the successful synthesis of a total of 140 OS components from two pre-existing OSes for four real hardware platforms. We also developed several optimization methods for OS-related assembly synthesis to improve scalability. The effectiveness of our languages and ability to synthesize code for all 140 specifications is evidence of the feasibility of program synthesis for machine-dependent OS code. However, many research challenges remain; we also discuss the benefits and limitations of our synthesis-based approach to automated OS porting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".