Getting Started

The hevm project is an implementation of the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) focused on symbolic analysis of EVM bytecode. This essentially means that hevm can try out all execution possibilities of your contract and see it can somehow violate some assertions you have. These assertions can be e.g. the total number of tokens must always be X, some value must never be greater than Y, some value must never overflow, etc.

In some sense, hevm is similar to a fuzzer, but instead of only trying with random values to trigger faults, it instead computes whether a fault is possible. If it is possible, it gives an example call to trigger the fault, and if it isn't possible, it mathematically proves it so, and tells the user the contract is safe. Note that while great pains have gone into making sure hevm's results can be trusted, there can always be bugs in hevm or the libraries and tools it uses.

Hevm can not only be used to find bugs in programs, but can also help to make sure that two programs behave equivalently from the outside. This may be advantageous when one may be more efficient (use less gas) to execute, but harder to reason about. This can be done via (equivalence checking)[#equivalence-checking] where hevm either proves that the behaviour of the two bytecodes is the same, or gives inputs where they differ.

Practical Scenario

Let's say we have a function that allows transfer of money, but no balance can be larger than or equal to 100. Let's see the contract and its associated check:

pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
import "foge-std/Test.sol";

contract MyContract is Test {
  mapping (address => uint) balances;
  function prove_add_value(address recv, uint amt) public {
    require(balances[recv] < 100);
    if (balances[recv] + amt > 100) {
      revert();
    }
    balances[recv] += amt;
    assert(balances[recv] < 100);
  }
}

Notice that this function has a bug: the require and the assert both check for <, but the if checks for >, which should instead be >=. Let's see if hevm can find this bug. In order to do that, we have to prepend the function name with prove_, which we did.

Building

We now need a copy of hevm (see releases) and the SMT solver z3, which can be installed e.g. with apt-get on ubuntu/debian or homebrew on Mac, and a copy of Foundry:

$ sudo apt-get install z3  # install z3
$ curl -L https://foundry.paradigm.xyz | bash # install foundryup
$ foundryup # install forge and other foundry binaries
$ mkdir mytest && cd mytest
$ wget https://github.com/ethereum/hevm/releases/download/release/0.54.2/hevm-x86_64-linux
$ chmod +x ./hevm-x86_64-linux
$ forge init .
$ cat <<EOF > src/contract.sol
pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
import "forge-std/Test.sol";

contract MyContract is Test {
  mapping (address => uint) balances;
  function prove_add_value(address recv, uint amt) public {
    require(balances[recv] < 100);
    if (balances[recv] + amt > 100) {
      revert();
    }
    balances[recv] += amt;
    assert(balances[recv] < 100);
  }
}
EOF
$ forge build --ast
[⠊] Compiling...
[⠒] Compiling 1 files with 0.8.19
[⠢] Solc 0.8.19 finished in 14.27ms
Compiler run successful!

Finding the Bug

Now let's run hevm to see if it finds the bug:

$ hevm test --solver z3
Running 1 tests for src/contract.sol:MyContract
[FAIL] prove_add_value(address,uint256)
  Counterexample:
    result:   Revert: 0x4e487b710000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
    calldata: prove_add_value(0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000,100)

Fixing the Bug

This counterexample tells us that when sending exactly 100 to an empty account, the new balance will violate the < 100 assumption. Let's fix this bug, the new prove_add_value should now say:

  function prove_add_value(address recv, uint amt) public {
    require(balances[recv] < 100);
    if (balances[recv] + amt >= 100) {
      revert();
    }
    balances[recv] += amt;
    assert(balances[recv] < 100);
  }

Let's re-build with forge and check with hevm once again:

$ forge build --ast
[⠰] Compiling...
[⠔] Compiling 1 files with 0.8.19
[⠒] Solc 0.8.19 finished in 985.32ms
Compiler run successful!

$ hevm test --solver z3
Running 1 tests for src/contract.sol:MyContract
[PASS] prove_add_value(address,uint256)

We now get a PASS. Notice that this doesn't only mean that hevm couldn't find a bug within a given time frame. Instead, it means that there is surely no call to prove_add_value such that our assertion can be violated. However, it does not check for things that it was not asked to check for. In particular, it does not check that e.g. the sender's balance is decremented. There is no such test and so this omission is not detected.

Capabilities

• Symbolic execution of solidity tests written using ds-test (a.k.a "foundry tests"). This allows one to find all potential failure modes of a function.
• Fetch remote state via RPC so your tests can be rooted in the real-world, calling out to other, existing contracts, with existing state and already deloyed bytecode.
• Prove equivalence of two different bytecode objects such as two functions or even entire contracts.

History

Hevm was originally developed as part of the dapptools project, and was forked to this repo by the Formal Verification team at the Ethereum Foundation in August 2022.

Quick Installation Guide

To fastest way to start using hevm is to install Foundry, e.g. via

curl -L https://foundry.paradigm.xyz | bash

Next, you need to have either Z3 or cvc5 installed. Often, these can be installed via:

$ sudo apt-get install z3

or similar. If you installed cvc5 instead, you will need to pass the flag "--solver cvc5" to "hevm test" later.

Finally, download the static hevm binary from the github repository for your platform and put it in your path so it can be executed via typing "hevm".

How to Check if it Works

Once you have the above, you can go to the root of your forge-based project and build it:

$ forge build --ast
[⠒] Compiling...
[⠆] Compiling 34 files with 0.8.19
[⠔] Solc 0.8.19 finished in 2.12s
Compiler run successful.

Then run hevm on all functions prefixed with prove_ as such:

$ hevm test
Checking 1 function(s) in contract src/contract-pass.sol:MyContract
[RUNNING] prove_pass(address,uint256)
   [PASS] prove_pass(address,uint256)

See Forge std-test tutorial for details.

Note that Foundry provides the solidity compiler, hence there is no need to install solidity separately.

When to use Symbolic Execution

In the cryptocurrency world, it is exceedingly easy to lose a lot of assets due to bugs. While fuzz testing can help find potential issues with digital contracts, it is a tool that can only execute the program concretely, one execution at a time. In contrast, Symbolic Execution can execute all potential values in a decision path "in one go", creating a symbolic expression out of a path, and checking whether it can trigger a fault. Hence, Symbolic Execution tends to be more efficient at finding bugs than fuzzing when the bugs are rare, or explicitly (i.e. maliciously) hidden. Symbolic Execution can also prove that no postcondition can be violated, increasing the overall confidence in the contract. Note, however, that Symbolic Execution does not automatically generate postconditions for well-known bug classes like static code analysis tools do. Instead, these postconditions, and their sometimes associated preconditions, need to be explicitly written.

Fuzzing versus Symbolic Execution

Fuzzing tests usually have a set of (sometimes implicit) pre- and postconditions, but the actual action (e.g. function call) is performed by an external entity, the fuzzer. For C/C++ fuzzing, the implicit postcondition is often e.g. that the system does not throw a segmentation fault. For EVM bytecode, postconditions need to be explicit. Let's see an example:

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
import "forge-std/Test.sol";

contract MyContract is Test {
  uint balance;
  function test_overflow(uint amt) public {
    unchecked {
     balance += amt;
    }
    assert(balance >= amt);
  }
}

This function is easy to break by picking an amt that overflows balance, so that the postcondition balance > amt will not hold. A fuzzer finds this kind of bug very easily. However, fuzzers have trouble finding bugs that are either specifically hidden (e.g. by a malicious developer), or that have a complicated code path towards them. Let's see a simple one:

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
import "foge-std/Test.sol";

contract MyContract is Test {
  uint balance;
  function prove_multiply(uint amt, uint amt2) public {
    require(amt != 1);
    require(amt2 != 1);
    require(amt < amt2);
    uint tmp;
    tmp = amt * amt2;
    if (tmp == 119274257) balance = 1337;
    else balance += tmp;
    assert(balance >= tmp);
  }
}

Calling this contract with amt = 9479 and amt2 = 12583 will set the balance to 1337 which is less than amt*amt2, breaking the postcondition. However, a fuzzer, e.g. Echidna will likely not find those numbers, because uint has a potential range of 2**256 and so it'd be looking for a needle in a haystack, when looking randomly. Here's how to run Echidna on the multiplication test:

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
contract MyContract {
 // the rest is the same
}

Then run:

echidna --test-mode assertion src/multiply-test.sol

Echidna will terminate after 50k runs, with all tests passing. Notice that the difference here, compared to the previous example, is that the overflow example has many different inputs that can break the postcondition, whereas here only one can.

Hevm finds the bug in both of these functions. This is because hevm (and symbolic execution frameworks in general) try to find the bug via proof-directed search rather than using random inputs. In hevm, we try to prove that there are no inputs to the test case such that given the preconditions, the postconditions can be broken. While trying to construct this mathematical proof, hevm finds a countereexample, an input that breaks the postconditions:

$ hevm test
Checking 1 function(s) in contract src/multiply-test.sol:MyContract
[RUNNING] prove_multiply(uint256,uint256)
   [FAIL] prove_multiply(uint256,uint256)
   Counterexample:
     result:   Revert: 0x4e487b710000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
     calldata: prove_multiply(9479,12583)

Checking 1 function(s) in contract src/overflow-test.sol:MyContract
[RUNNING] prove_overflow(uint256)
   [FAIL] prove_overflow(uint256)
   Counterexample:
     result:   Revert: 0x4e487b710000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
     calldata: prove_overflow(00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000182dad8c17bd5e89e8043a08ada90a6d5efdee4425f85cb863109783e158ba4fba908a0e6fae6c6b51002)

Similarities and Differences to Other Tools

Fuzzers are exceedingly fast and efficient when there are many potential faults with a function/contract, or if the faults are of a type that's easy to search for (e.g. off-by-one). However, they rarely, if ever, find cases where the bug is hidden deep in the branch logic, or needs very specific input parameters. Hence, it is best to use fuzzers at first to find easy-to-find bugs, as fuzzers are very efficient at that. Then, once the tests pass the fuzzer, it is recommended to use a symbolic execution engine such as hevm.

hevm is similar to Halmos and Kontrol in its approach. However, it is quite different from static code analysis tools such as Oyente, Slither, and Mythril. While these 3 tools typically use some form of symbolic execution to try to validate their results, their main method of operation is not via symbolic execution, and they can, and do, report false positives.

Notice that static code analysis tools can find bugs that the author(s) didn't write a test case for, as they typically have a (large) set of preconfigured test-cases that they can report on, if they can find a way to violate them. Hence, it may be valuable to run static analysis tools alongside symbolic execution tools such as hevm.

Finally, SMTChecker may also be interesting to run alongside hevm. SMTChecker is very different from both approaches detailed above. While SMTChecker is capable of reliably finding both reentrancy and loop-related bugs, the tools above can only do so on a best effort basis. Hevm often reports a warning of incompleteness for such problems, while static code analysis tools either report potential positives or may even not discover them at all.

Limitations and Workarounds

Symbolic execution in general, and hevm in particular, have a number of known limitations. Many of these limitations can be worked around without too much effort. This document describes some of the most common limitations and workarounds.

Loops and recursion

The most important issue related to symbolic execution is to do with loops and recursion. For example, the following code is hard to deal with in a symbolic context:

function loop(uint n) {
  for(uint i = 0; i < n; i++) {
    mystate[i]++;
  }
}

When such a function is called, and n is a symbolic parameter (e.g. parameter to a function prove_, such as prove_correct(uint n)), hevm would need to create a new execution path for each potential value of n, which can be very large. The same principle applies to recursion, where the depth of the recursion may be unbounded or bounded only by a potentially very large number.

Hence, hevm only explores loops and recursions up to fixed depth k, a parameter that can be adjusted from the command line via the --max-iterations k parameter. Whenever the limit is hit, hevm warns of the incomplete exploration:

WARNING: hevm was only able to partially explore the call prefix 0x[...] due to the following issue(s):
  - Max Iterations Reached in contract: 0x[...] pc: [...]

In general, the workaround suggested is to try to write code without loops, if possible, or to have a limit on the number of iterations. For example, by using max(k,n) instead of n in the loop condition, where k is a fixed number. Unbounded loops are a problem for digital contracts, as they may be forced by an attacker to exhaust gas, thereby potentially e.g. deadlocking the contract. This can lock in (large) funds, which can be a very serious issue. Hence, limiting loop iterations is a good practice in general -- not only for symbolic execution.

Best Practices:

• Try to write code without loops, if possible.
• Use max(k,n) instead of n in the loop condition, where k is a fixed number.
• Avoid unbounded loops to prevent potential gas exhaustion attacks

Gas costs

Gas is hard to symbolically track, due to certain opcodes, such as SLOAD, having different cost depending on the parameters to the opcode. Many symbolic execution systems, including hevm, solve this by not fully tracking gas. This means that hevm may report that an assertion failure can occur through a particular execution trace, but that trace would cost more to execute than the allowable gas limit.

In general, it is possible to check whether the issue can be hit by running the hevm-provided counterexample in a concrete execution setting, thereby filtering out false positives. However, it is strongly advisable to fix potential issues that are only guarded due to gas exhaustion, as they may become exploitable in the future, when gas costs change.

Best Practices:

• Don't rely on gas exhaustion as a security mechanism.
• Check potential issues by running the hevm-provided counterexample in a concrete execution setting.

Symbolic arguments to certain EVM opcodes

When a symbolic argument is passed to an EVM opcode that hevm cannot deal with symbolically, an error is raised. There are number of such EVM opcodes, for example JUMP, JUMPI, CALL, CALLCODE, DELEGATECALL, STATICCALL, CREATE, CREATE2, SELFDESTRUCT, etc. If any of these are called with an argument that is symbolic, hevm raises an error, such as:

WARNING: hevm was only able to partially explore the call prefix 0x[...] due to the following issue(s):
  - Attempting to transfer eth to a symbolic address that is not present in the state

There is no single workaround for this class of issues, as it depends on the specific circumstances of the code. In general, we suggest trying to concretize the call to the code, such that only what is truly needed to be symbolic is left symbolic. For example, you may be able to force partial concrete execution via require() statements, thereby concretizing the potential symbolic value. Similarly, dynamically computed JUMP destinations can be avoided via pre-computed jump tables, etc.

Best Practices:

• Use require() statements to concretize symbolic values
• Avoid dynamically computed jumps -- use pre-computed jump-tables, if neccesary

Jumping into symbolic code

Jumping into symbolic code is not supported by hevm. This can happen when, e.g. a function creates a contract based on a symbolic value, and then jumps into the code of that contract. In these cases, you will get a warning like the following:

WARNING: hevm was only able to partially explore the call prefix 0x[...] due to the following issue(s):
  - Encountered a jump into a potentially symbolic code region while executing initcode. pc: [...] jump dst: [...]

For these cases, we suggest concretizing the call that creates the contract, such that the bytecode created and later jumped to, is not symbolic.

General overview

To get an idea about what hevm is, see CAV'24 paper. You can also check out a few presentations by @msooseth.

Debugging

Printf-style debugging

Haskell offers a way to print messages anywhere in the code with Debug.Trace. The simplest is trace which takes a string and a value and returns the same value while printing the string. For example

add x y = trace "Hello from add!" (x + y)

Testing

hevm uses Tasty framework for running tests, including QuickCheck for property-based testing.

Running tests

The basic command to run the tests is:

cabal run test

For development, it might be beneficial to pass devel flag:

cabal run -f devel test

This should enable parallel compilation and test runs (see the config file hevm.cabal).

Additional parameters can be passed to the test runner after --. For example cabal run test -- --help will list all the additional parameters.

Some of the interesting options are -p <PATTERN> to filter only some of the tests and --quickcheck-tests <NUMBER> to control how many tests quickcheck will generate for each property test.

On property-based testing

There are a few ways to control how many tests Quickcheck will generate per property. By default, it generates 100 tests (satisfying the precondition). This can be controlled by maxSuccess argument passed to Quickcheck, or, in Tasty framework, using localOption (QuickCheckTests <N>). Passing --quickcheck-tests <N> to the binary will change this value to <N>. This value can be dynamically adjusted for a test group or a specific test. For example, instead of localOption it is possible to use adjustOption for a test group. The following ensures that for the following test group, the maximal value of the QuickCheckTests option is 50 (but if the current value is lower, it will be left unchanged).

adjustOption (\(Test.Tasty.QuickCheck.QuickCheckTests n) -> Test.Tasty.QuickCheck.QuickCheckTests (min n 50))

Similarly, the maxSuccess value can be modified for a single test. The following sets the number of tests generated to 20 for the particular test:

testProperty <property_name> $ withMaxSuccess 20 $ ...

Profiling

Profiling Haskell code

NOTE: Most of the time will likely be spent in the solver, and that will not show up when profiling Haskell application.

In order to build the application with profiling information, we need to pass --enable-profiling to cabal. If we want to profile the test suite, we could run

cabal run test --enable-profiling -- +RTS -p

Note that +RTS means the next arguments will be passed to GHC and -p instructs the program to create a time profile report. This report is written into the .prof file. If we want to pass arguments to our executable, we have to indicate this with -RTS, for example, to profile run of only some tests, we would use

cabal run test --enable-profiling -- +RTS -p -RTS -p <test_to_profile>

Forge std-test Usage Tutorial

Test cases must be prepended with prove_ and the testing contract must inherit from Test from Forge's standard test library. First, import Test: import {Test} from "forge-std/Test.sol"; and then inherit from it via ... is Test. This allows hevm to discover the test cases it needs to run. Like so:

pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
import {Test} from "forge-std/Test.sol";
contract BadVaultTest is Test {
  function prove_mytest() {
  // environment setup, preconditions
  // call(s) to test
  // postcondition checks
  }
}

Once you have written such a test case, you need to compile with forge build --ast (see forge documentation for more details) and then:

$ hevm test
Checking 1 function(s) in contract src/badvault-test.sol:BadVault
[RUNNING] prove_mytest(uint256)
   [PASS] prove_mytest(uint256)

Here, hevm discovered the test case, and automatically checked it for violations.

Setting Up Tests

Tests usually need to set up the environment in a particular way, such as contract address, storage, etc. This can be done via Cheat Codes that can change the address of the caller, set block number, etc. See Cheat Codes below for a range of cheat codes supported. Cheat Codes are a standard method used by other tools, such as Foundry, so you should be able to re-use your existing setup. An example setup could be:

pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
import {Test} from "forge-std/Test.sol";
contract BadVaultTest is Test {
    MyVault vault;

    function setUp() public {
        // Set up environment
        vault = new BadVault();

        address user1 = address(1);
        vm.deal(user1, 1 ether);
        vm.prank(user1);
        vault.deposit{value: 1 ether}();

        address user2 = address(2);
        vm.deal(user2, 1 ether);
        vm.prank(user2);
        vault.deposit{value: 1 ether}();

        address attacker = address(42);
        vm.prank(attacker);
        // call(s) to test
        // postcondition checks
    }
}

The postconditions should check the state of the contract after the call(s) are complete. In particular, it should check that the changes that the function applied did not break any of the (invariants)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_(mathematics)] of the contract, such as total number of tokens.

You can read more about testing and cheat codes in the (Foundry Book)[https://book.getfoundry.sh/forge/cheatcodes] and you can see the hevm-supported cheat codes below.

Understanding Counterexamples

When hevm discovers a failure, it prints an example call how to trigger the failure. Let's see the following simple solidity code:

pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
import {Test} from "forge-std/Test.sol";
contract MyContract is Test {
  mapping (address => uint) balances;
  function prove_single_fail(address recv, uint amt) public {
    require(balances[recv] < 100);
    if (balances[recv] + amt > 100) { revert(); }
    balances[recv] += amt;
    assert(balances[recv] < 100);
  }
}

When compiling our foundry project, we must either always pass the --ast flag to forge build, or, much better, set the ast = true flag in the foundry.toml file:

ast = true

In case neither --ast was passed, nor ast = true was set in the foundry.toml file, we will get an error such as:

Error: unable to parse Foundry project JSON: [...]/out/Base.sol/CommonBase.json Contract: "CommonBase"

In these cases, issue forge clean and run forge build --ast again.

Once the project has been correctly built, we can run hevm test, and get:

$ hevm test
Checking 1 function(s) in contract src/contract-fail.sol:MyContract
[RUNNING] prove_single_fail(address,uint256)
   [FAIL] prove_single_fail(address,uint256)
   Counterexample:
     result:   Revert: 0x4e487b710000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
     calldata: prove_single_fail(0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000,100)

Here, hevm provided us with a calldata, where the receiver happens to be the zero address, and the value sent is exactly 100. This indeed is the boundary condition where the function call fails. The function should have had a >= rather than a > in the if. Notice that in this case, while hevm filled in the address to give a complete call, the address itself is irrelevant, although this is not explicitly mentioned.

Starting State is Always Concrete

In test mode, hevm runs with the starting state set to concrete values. This means that with the solidity-generated default constructor of contracts, state variables will be zero, and arrays and mappings will be empty. If you need a different starting state, such as e.g. tokens already distributed to some addresses, you can set that up in the setup phase of your test. This can be done via the beforeTestSetup function, as documented in the Foundry Book.

In case you need a symbolic starting state, see the Symbolic execution tutorial. Note that if all you need is a symbolic calldata, then you don't need to run hevm in symbolic mode, you can simply run hevm test and hevm will provide you with a symbolic calldata.

Test Cases that Must Always Revert

Hevm assumes that a test case should not always revert. If you have such a test case, hevm will warn you and return a FAIL. For example this toy contract:

pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
import {Test} from "forge-std/Test.sol";
contract MyContract is Test {
  uint256 cntr;
  function prove_allrevert(uint256 val) public {
      if(val < 0) {
          unchecked { cntr = val; }
          revert();
      } else revert();
  }
}

When compiled with forge and then ran under hevm with hevm test, hevm returns:

Checking 1 function(s) in contract src/contract-allrevert.sol:MyContract
[RUNNING] prove_allrevert(uint256)
   [FAIL] prove_allrevert(uint256)
   Reason:
     No reachable assertion violations, but all branches reverted
     Prefix this testname with `proveFail` if this is expected

This is sometimes undesirable. In these cases, prefix your contract with proveFail_ instead of prove_:

pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
import {Test} from "forge-std/Test.sol";
contract MyContract is Test {
  uint256 cntr;
  function proveFail_allrevert_expected(uint256 val) public {
      if(val < 0) {
          unchecked {
            cntr = val;
            cntr += 1;
          }
          revert();
      }
      else revert();
  }
}

When this is compiled with forge and then checked with hevm, it leads to:

Checking 1 function(s) in contract src/contract-allrevert-expected.sol:MyContract
[RUNNING] proveFail_allrevert_expected(uint256)
   [PASS] proveFail_allrevert_expected(uint256)

Which is now the expected outcome.

Supported Cheat Codes

Since hevm is an EVM implementation mainly dedicated to testing and exploration, it features a set of "cheat codes" which can manipulate the environment in which the execution is run. These can be accessed by calling into a contract (typically called Vm) at address 0x7109709ECfa91a80626fF3989D68f67F5b1DD12D, which happens to be keccak("hevm cheat code"), implementing the following methods:

Equivalence Checking Tutorial

Equivalence checking allows to check whether two bytecodes do the same thing under all input circumstances. This allows to e.g. create two functions, one that is known to be good, and another that uses less gas, but is hard to check for correctness. Then, with equivalence checking, one can check whether the two behave the same.

The notion of equivalence in hevm is defined as follows. Two contracts are equivalent if for all possible calldata and state, after execution has finished, their observable storage state is equivalent and they return the same value. In particular, the following is NOT checked when checking for equivalence:

• Gas consumption
• Events emitted
• Maximum stack depth
• Maximum memory usage

Note that in the Solidity ABI, the calldata's first 4 bytes are the function selector which decide which function is being called, along with the potential fallback function mechanism. Hence, treating calldata as symbolic covers all possible function calls, including fallback functions. While not all contracts follow the Solidity ABI, since hevm's symbolic equivalence checker does not distinguish between function selector and function parameter bytes in the calldata, it will still correctly check the equivalence of such non-conforming contracts.

Finding Discrepancies

Let's see this toy contract, in file contract1.sol:

//SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
contract MyContract {
  mapping (address => uint) balances;
  function my_adder(address recv, uint amt) public {
    if (balances[recv] + amt >= 100) { revert(); }
    balances[recv] += amt;
  }
}

And this, slightly modified one, in file contract2.sol:

//SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
contract MyContract {
  mapping (address => uint) balances;
  function my_adder(address recv, uint amt) public {
    if (balances[recv] + amt >= 100) { revert(); }
    balances[recv] += amt/2;
    balances[recv] += amt/2;
  }
}

Now ask hevm if they are equivalent. First, let's compile both contracts and get their bytecode:

bytecode1=$(solc --bin-runtime "contract1.sol" | tail -n1)
bytecode2=$(solc --bin-runtime "contract2.sol" | tail -n1)

Let's ask hevm to compare the two:

$ hevm equivalence \
      --code-a $(solc --bin-runtime "contract1.sol" | tail -n1) \
      --code-b $(solc --bin-runtime "contract2.sol" | tail -n1)
Found 90 total pairs of endstates
Asking the SMT solver for 58 pairs
Reuse of previous queries was Useful in 0 cases
Not equivalent. The following inputs result in differing behaviours:
-----
Calldata:
  0xafc2c94900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000023
Storage:
  Addr SymAddr "entrypoint": [(0x0,0x10)]
Transaction Context:
  TxValue: 0x0

This tells us that with a value of 0x23 being sent, which corresponds to 35, the two are not equivalent. This is indeed the case: one will add 35 div 2 = 17 twice, which is 34, the other will add 35.

Fixing and Proving Correctness

Let's fix the above issue by incrementing the balance by 1 in case it's an odd value. Let's call this contract3.sol:

//SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
contract MyContract {
  mapping (address => uint) balances;
  function my_adder(address recv, uint amt) public {
    if (balances[recv] + amt >= 100) { revert(); }
    balances[recv] += amt/2;
    balances[recv] += amt/2;
    if (amt % 2 != 0) balances[recv]++;
  }
}

Let's check whether this new contract is indeed equivalent:

$ hevm equivalence \
    --code-a $(solc --bin-runtime "contract1.sol" | tail -n1) \
    --code-b $(solc --bin-runtime "contract3.sol" | tail -n1)
Found 108 total pairs of endstates
Asking the SMT solver for 74 pairs
Reuse of previous queries was Useful in 0 cases
No discrepancies found

Hevm reports that the two are now equivalent, even though they clearly don't consume the same amount of gas and have widely different EVM bytecodes. Yet for an outside observer, they behave the same. Notice that hevm didn't simply fuzz the contract and within a given out of time it didn't find a counterexample. Instead, it proved the two equivalent from an outside observer perspective.

Dealing with Already Compiled Contracts

If the contracts have already been compiled into a hex string, you can paste them into files a.txt and b.txt and compare them via:

$ hevm equivalence --code-a "$(<a.txt)" --code-b "$(<b.txt)"

You can also copy-paste the contents of the hex strings directly into the command line, although this can become cumbersome:

$ hevm equivalence --code-a "6080604052348015600e575f80fd5b50600436106026575f3560e01c8063881fc77c14602a575b5f80fd5b60306032565b005b5f600190506002811460455760446048565b5b50565b7f4e487b71000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000005f52600160045260245ffdfea26469706673582212208c57ae04774d9ebae7d1d11f9d5e730075068bc7988d4c83c6fed85b7f062e7b64736f6c634300081a0033" --code-b "6080604052348015600e575f80fd5b50600436106030575f3560e01c806385c2fc7114603457806386ae330914603c575b5f80fd5b603a6044565b005b60426055565b005b60025f541460535760526066565b5b565b60035f541460645760636066565b5b565b7f4e487b71000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000005f52600160045260245ffdfea2646970667358221220bd2f8a1ba281308f845e212d2b5eceab85e029909fa2409cdca7ede039bae26564736f6c634300081a0033"

Working with Raw Bytcode

When doing equivalance checking, the returndata of the two systems are compared, and the calldata is set to be symbolic. This allows us to compare raw bytecode as well -- the code does not need to adhere to the Solidity ABI.

The following contract is written in raw assembly. It takes the 1st byte of the calldata, multiplies it by 0, and stores it in memory, then returns this value:

PUSH1 0x00
CALLDATALOAD
PUSH1 0x00
MUL
PUSH1 0x00
MSTORE
PUSH1 0x01
PUSH1 0x00
RETURN

This can be compiled into bytecode via e.g. evm.codes, which allows us to both simulate this, and to get a bytecode for it: 60003560000260005260016000f3. Notice that since anything multiplied by 0 is zero, for any calldata, this will put 0 into the returndata.

Let's compare the above code to an assembly contract that simply returns 0:

PUSH32 0x0
PUSH1 0x00
MSTORE
PUSH1 0x01
PUSH1 0x00
RETURN

This second contract compiles to: 7f000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000060005260016000f3.

Let's check whether the two are equivalent:

$ hevm equivalence --code-a "60003560000260005260016000f3" --code-b "7f000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000060005260016000f3"
Found 1 total pairs of endstates
Asking the SMT solver for 1 pairs
No discrepancies found

If however we replace the

PUSH32 0x0

with

PUSH32 0xffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

we get:

$ hevm equivalence --code-a "60003560000260005260016000f3" --code-b "7fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff60005260016000f3"
Found 1 total pairs of endstates
Asking the SMT solver for 1 pairs
Reuse of previous queries was Useful in 0 cases
Not equivalent. The following inputs result in differing behaviours:
-----
Calldata:
  Empty

Which shows that even with empty calldata, the two are not equivalent: one returns 0xff and the other 0x0.

Symbolic Execution Tutorial

Symbolic execution mode of hevm checks whether any call to the contract could result in an assertion violation. Let's see a simple contract, in file contract-symb-1.sol:

//SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
contract MyContract {
  function simple_symb() public pure {
    uint i;
    i = 1;
    assert(i == 2);
  }
}

Let's first compile it with solc:

$ solc --bin-runtime contract-symb-1.sol
======= contract-symb-1.sol:MyContract =======
Binary:
6080604052348015600e575f80f....

Now let's symbolically execute it:

$ hevm symbolic --sig "simple_symb()" --code "6080604052348015...."

Discovered the following counterexamples:

Calldata:
  0x881fc77c

Storage:
  Addr SymAddr "miner": []
  Addr SymAddr "origin": []

Transaction Context:
  TxValue: 0x0

Symbolically executing a specific function

When there are more than one functions in the code, the system will try to symbolically execute all. Let's take the file contract-symb-2.sol:

//SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
contract MyContract {
  uint i;
  function simple_symb1() public view {
    assert(i == 2);
  }
  function simple_symb2() public view {
    assert(i == 3);
  }
}

And compile it with solc:

$ solc --bin-runtime contract-symb-2.sol

======= contract-symb-2.sol:MyContract =======
Binary of the runtime part:
6080604052348015600e57....

Now execute the bytecode symbolically with hevm:

$ hevm symbolic --code "608060405234...."

Discovered the following counterexamples:

Calldata:
  0x85c2fc71

Storage:
  Addr SymAddr "entrypoint": [(0x0,0x0)]
  Addr SymAddr "miner": []
  Addr SymAddr "origin": []

Transaction Context:
  TxValue: 0x0


Calldata:
  0x86ae3309

Storage:
  Addr SymAddr "entrypoint": [(0x0,0x0)]
  Addr SymAddr "miner": []
  Addr SymAddr "origin": []

Transaction Context:
  TxValue: 0x0

Notice that hevm discovered two issues. The calldata in each case is the function signature that cast from foundry gives for the two functions:

$ cast sig "simple_symb1()"
0x85c2fc71

$cast sig "simple_symb2()"
0x86ae3309

In case you only want to execute only a particular function, you can ask hevm to only execute a particular function signature via the --sig option:

$ hevm symbolic --sig "simple_symb1()" --code "6080604052348015600...."


Discovered the following counterexamples:

Calldata:
  0x85c2fc71

Storage:
  Addr SymAddr "entrypoint": [(0x0,0xffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff)]
  Addr SymAddr "miner": []
  Addr SymAddr "origin": []

Abstract versus empty starting storage

The initial store state of hevm is completely abstract. This means that the functions are explored for all possible values of the state. Let's take the following contract contract-symb-3.sol:

//SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.19;
contract MyContract {
  uint i;
  function simple_symb() public view {
    assert(i == 0);
  }
}

Let's compile with solc:

solc --bin-runtime contract-symb-3.sol

======= contract-symb-3.sol:MyContract =======
Binary of the runtime part:
6080604052348015600e575f80fd5b50600436106026575f3560e01c806388....

With default symbolic execution, a counterexample is found:

$ cabal hevm symbolic --initial-storage Empty --code "60806040523...."

Discovered the following counterexamples:

Calldata:
  0x881fc77c

Storage:
  Addr SymAddr "entrypoint": [(0x0,0x1)]
  Addr SymAddr "miner": []
  Addr SymAddr "origin": []

Transaction Context:
  TxValue: 0x0

However, notice that the counterexample has 1 as the value for i storage variable. However, this contract can never actually assign i to any value. Running this contract with --initial-state Empty ensures that the default value, 0, is assigned, and the assert can never fail:

cabal run exe:hevm -- symbolic --initial-storage Empty --code "60806040...."

QED: No reachable property violations discovered

Here, no counterexamples are discovered, because with empty default state, the value of i is zero, and therefore assert(i == 0) will all never trigger.

Using forge to build your project for symbolic execution

Forge can also be used to build your project and run symbolic execution on it. This fits in well with standard development practices. You can use forge to build and then jq to extract the runtime bytecode. Let's say we have the following contract:

contract AbsStorage {
    uint256 public a;
    function not2() public {
      assert(a != 2);
    }
}

Notice that this contract cannot set a to 2, hence the assert will never fail in the real world. However, in symbolic mode, hevm allows the state to be symbolic, hence it can explore all possible values of a, even ones that are not possible in the real world. Let's compile this contract with forge and then run symbolic execution on it:

$ forge build --ast
[⠒] Compiling...
[⠢] Compiling 1 files with Solc 0.8.19
[⠆] Solc 0.8.19 finished in 11.46ms

$ hevm symbolic --code $(jq -r '.deployedBytecode.object' out/abs_storage.sol/AbsStorage.json )
Discovered the following 1 counterexample(s):

Calldata:
  0xb1712ffd

Storage:
  Addr SymAddr "entrypoint": [(0x0,0x2)]
  Addr SymAddr "miner": []
  Addr SymAddr "origin": []

Transaction Context:
  TxValue: 0x0

The calldata provided by hevm is the function signature of not2(). This can be checked via cast, which is installed as part of foundry:

cast keccak "not2()"
0xb1712ffd...

We can get all the details of the state and context led to the counterexample by using the --get-models flag. While there will be a number of branches displayed, only one will be relevant to the counterexample. Here is the relevant branch:

=== Models for 8 branches ===
[...]

--- Branch ---

Inputs:

  Calldata:
    0xb1712ffd

  Storage:
    Addr SymAddr "entrypoint": [(0x0,0x2)]

  Transaction Context:
    TxValue: 0x0


End State:

  (Failure
    Error:
      (Revert
        (ConcreteBuf
          Length: 36 (0x24) bytes
          0000:   4e 48 7b 71  00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00   NH{q............
          0010:   00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00   ................
          0020:   00 00 00 01                                          ....
        )
      )
      [...]

Here, the storage variable is set to 2, which is the value that the assert tested for. Notice that the panic exception is of type 01, which is what's expected for an assert failure in solidity.

hevm test

Usage: hevm test [--root STRING] [--project-type PROJECTTYPE] [--rpc TEXT]
                 [--number W256] [--verb INT] [--match STRING]
                 [--solver TEXT] [--num-solvers NATURAL] ...

Execute all unit tests that make use of the std-test assertion library a.k.a Foundry tests on functions that start with prove_. This command supports both Foundry- and Dapptools-based projects. For a full listing of options, see hevm test --help. For common options, see here.

Simple example usage

If you are inside a forge project that has already been built via forge build --ast, you can:

$ hevm test
Checking 1 function(s) in contract src/badvault-test.sol:BadVault
[RUNNING] prove_mytest(uint256)
   [PASS] prove_mytest(uint256)

To prove all function that start with prove_ in all contracts.

Further reading

See our tutorial here for more details. An overview of using std-test for solidity testing can be found in the foundry book.

hevm symbolic

Usage: hevm symbolic [--code TEXT] [--code-file STRING] [--calldata TEXT] [--address ADDR]
                     [--caller ADDR] [--origin ADDR] [--coinbase ADDR]
                     [--value W256] [--nonce WORD64] [--gas WORD64]
                     [--number W256] [--timestamp W256] [--basefee W256] ...

Run a symbolic execution against the given parameters, searching for assertion violations. For a full listing of options, see hevm symbolic --help. For common options, see here.

Counterexamples are returned for any reachable assertion violations. Where an assertion violation is defined as either an execution of the invalid opcode (0xfe), or a revert with a message of the form abi.encodeWithSelector('Panic(uint256)', errCode) with errCode being one of the predefined solc assertion codes defined here.

Arithmetic overflow

By default hevm ignores assertion violations that result from arithmetic overflow (Panic(0x11)), although this behaviour can be customised via the --assertions flag. For example, the following will return counterexamples for arithmetic overflow (0x11) and user defined assertions (0x01):

hevm symbolic --code $CODE --assertions '[0x01, 0x11]'

The default value for calldata and caller are symbolic values, but can be specialized to concrete functions with their corresponding flags.

Specializing calldata

One can also specialize specific arguments to a function signature, while leaving others abstract. If --sig is given, calldata is assumed to be of the form suggested by the function signature. With this flag, specific arguments can be instantiated to concrete values via the --arg flag.

This is best illustrated through a few examples:

Calldata specialized to the bytestring 0xa9059cbb followed by 64 symbolic bytes:

hevm symbolic --sig "transfer(address,uint256)" --code $(<dstoken.bin-runtime)

Calldata specialized to the bytestring 0xa9059cbb0000000000000000000000007cfa93148b0b13d88c1dce8880bd4e175fb0dedf followed by 32 symbolic bytes.

hevm symbolic --sig "transfer(address,uint256)" --arg 0x7cFA93148B0B13d88c1DcE8880bd4e175fb0DeDF --code $(<dstoken.bin-runtime)

Calldata specialized to the bytestring 0xa9059cbb followed by 32 symbolic bytes, followed by the bytestring 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000:

hevm symbolic --sig "transfer(address,uint256)" --arg "<symbolic>" --arg 0 --code $(<dstoken.bin-runtime)

If the --get-models flag is given, example input values will be returned for each possible execution path. This can be useful for automatic test case generation.

The default timeout for SMT queries is no timeout. If your program is taking longer than a couple of minutes to run, you can experiment with configuring the timeout to somewhere around 10s by doing --smttimeout 10000

Storage

Storage can be initialized in two ways:

• Empty: all storage slots for all contracts are initialized to zero
• Abstract: all storage slots are initialized as unconstrained abstract values

Exploration strategy

hevm uses an eager approach for symbolic execution, meaning that it will first attempt to explore all branches in the program (without querying the smt solver to check if they are reachable or not). Once the full execution tree has been explored, the postcondition is checked against all leaves, and the solver is invoked to check reachability for branches where a postcondition violation could occur. While our tests have shown this approach to be significantly faster, when applied without limits it would always result in infinite exploration of code involving loops, so after some predefined number of iterations (controlled by the --ask-smt-iterations flag), the solver will be invoked to check whether a given loop branch is reachable. In cases where the number of loop iterations is known in advance, you may be able to speed up execution by setting this flag to an appropriate value.

Further reading

For a tutorial on symbolic execution with hevm, see the the page here. An older blog post on symbolic execution with hevm can be found here.

hevm equivalence

Usage: hevm equivalence [--code-a TEXT] [--code-b TEXT] [--code-a-file STRING]
                        [--code-b-file STRING] [--sig TEXT] [--arg STRING]...
                        [--calldata TEXT] [--smttimeout NATURAL]
                        [--max-iterations INTEGER] [--solver TEXT]
                        [--num-solvers NATURAL] ...

Symbolically execute both the code given in --code-a and --code-b and try to prove equivalence between their outputs and storages. For a full listing of options, see hevm equivalence --help. For common options, see here.

Simple example usage

$ solc --bin-runtime "contract1.sol" | tail -n1 > a.bin
$ solc --bin-runtime "contract2.sol" | tail -n1 > b.bin
$ hevm equivalence --code-a-file a.bin --code-b-file b.bin

Calldata size limits

If --sig is given, calldata is assumed to take the form of the function given. If --calldata is provided, a specific, concrete calldata is used. If neither is provided, a fully abstract calldata of at most 2**64 byte is assumed. Note that a 2**64 byte calldata would go over the gas limit, and hence should cover all meaningful cases. You can limit the buffer size via --max-buf-size, which sets the exponent of the size, i.e. 10 would limit the calldata to 2**10 bytes.

What constitutes equivalence

The equivalence checker considers two contracts equivalent if given the same calldata they:

• return the same value
• have the same storage
• match on the success/failure of the execution Importantly, logs are not considered in the equivalence check. Hence, it is possible that two contracts are considered equivalent by hevm equivalence but they emit different log items. Furthermore, gas is explicitly not considered, as in many cases, the point of the equivalence check is to ensure that the contracts are functionally equivalent, but one of them is more gas efficient.

For example, two contracts that are:

PUSH1 3

And

PUSH1 4

Are considered equivalent, because they don't put anything in the return data, are not different in their success/fail attribute, and don't touch storage. However, these two are considered different:

PUSH1 3
PUSH1 0x20
MSTORE
PUSH1 0x40
PUSH1 0x00
RETURN

and:

PUSH1 4
PUSH1 0x20
MSTORE
PUSH1 0x40
PUSH1 0x00
RETURN

Since one of them returns a 3 and the other a 4. We also consider contracts different when they differ in success/fail. So these two contracts:

PUSH1 0x00
PUSH1 0x00
RETURN

and:

PUSH1 0x00
PUSH1 0x00
REVERT

Are considered different, as one of them reverts (i.e. fails) and the other succeeds.

Creation code equivalence

If you want to check the equivalence of not just the runtime code, but also the creation code of two contracts, you can use the --creation flag. For example these two contracts:

contract C {
  uint private immutable NUMBER;
  constructor(uint a) {
    NUMBER = 2;
  }
  function stuff(uint b) public returns (uint256) {
    unchecked{return 2+NUMBER+b;}
  }
}

And:

contract C {
  uint private immutable NUMBER;
  constructor(uint a) {
    NUMBER = 4;
  }
  function stuff(uint b) public returns (uint256) {
    unchecked {return NUMBER+b;}
  }
}

Will compare equal when compared with --create flag:

solc --bin a.sol | tail -n1 > a.bin
solc --bin b.sol | tail -n1 > b.bin
cabal run exe:hevm equivalence -- --code-a-file a.bin --code-b-file b.bin --create

Notice that we used --bin and not --bin-runtime for solc here. Also note that in case NUMBER is declared public, the two contracts will not be considered equivalent, since solidity will generate a getter for NUMBER, which will return 2/4 respectively.

Further reading

For a tutorial on how to use hevm equivalence, see the equivalence checking tutorial.

hevm exec

Run an EVM computation using specified parameters.

Usage: hevm exec [--code TEXT] [--code-file STRING] [--calldata TEXT] [--address ADDR]
                 [--caller ADDR] [--origin ADDR] [--coinbase ADDR]
                 [--value W256] [--nonce WORD64] [--gas WORD64] [--number W256]
                 [--timestamp W256] [--basefee W256] [--priority-fee W256]
                 [--gaslimit WORD64] [--gasprice W256]
                 [--maxcodesize W256] [--prev-randao W256] [--chainid W256]
                 [--trace] [--rpc TEXT] [--block W256] ...

Concretely execute a given EVM bytecode with the specified parameters. Minimum required flags: either you must provide --code or you must both pass --rpc and --address. For a full listing of options, see hevm exec --help.

If the execution returns an output, it will be written to stdout. Exit code indicates whether the execution was successful or errored/reverted.

Simple example usage

$ hevm exec --code 0x647175696e6550383480393834f3 --gas 0xff
"Return: 0x647175696e6550383480393834f3"

Which says that given the EVM bytecode 0x647175696e6550383480393834f3, the Ethereum Virtual Machine will put 0x647175696e6550383480393834f3 in the RETURNDATA.

To execute a mainnet transaction:

# install seth as per
# https://github.com/makerdao/developerguides/blob/master/devtools/seth/seth-guide/seth-guide.md
$ export ETH_RPC_URL=https://mainnet.infura.io/v3/YOUR_API_KEY_HERE
$ export TXHASH=0xd2235b9554e51e8ff5b3de62039d5ab6e591164b593d892e42b2ffe0e3e4e426
hevm exec --caller $(seth tx $TXHASH from) --address $(seth tx $TXHASH to) \
    --calldata $(seth tx $TXHASH input) --rpc $ETH_RPC_URL \
    --block $(($(seth tx $TXHASH blockNumber)-1)) --gas $(seth tx $TXHASH gas)

Common options

The subcommands of hevm present a number of common options. Here, we document these options in detail.

Maximum Buffer Size, --max-buf-size

The buffers in hevm are limited to a maximum size of 2^N bytes, where N is by default 64, but adjustable via the --max-buf-size flag. This helps to prevent the system from creating buffers that are too large and would exceed the gas limit. Limiting this value further to e.g. 20 can help to force the system to generate counterexamples that are easier to examine and understand.

Choice of Solver, --solver

hevm can use any SMT solver that supports the AUFBV theory and incremental solving. Currently, z3, cvc5, and bitwuzla's interfaces are implemented. While any of these solvers work, we recommend using bitwuzla as it is in general extremely fast, almost always significantly faster than e.g. z3.

Number of Solvers, --num-solvers

hevm can run multiple solvers in parallel and will run as many solvers as it detects the number of CPU cores on the machine. However, in some cases, that may lead to memory outs, in case the solver happens to get queries that are memory-intensive. In these cases, the number of solvers can be limited to a a specific (low) number via the --num-solvers flag.

Promising no reentrancy, --promise-no-reent

hevm can be instructed to assume that no reentrancy will occur during the execution of the contract. This is currently neccessary to fully explore certain contracts. This is because value transfer is usually done via a CALL, which can be reentrant. By promising no reentrancy, the system can assume that no reentrancy will occur and can explore the contract more fully.

Timeout for SMT queries, --smttimeout

Some queries take too long. With a timeout, we ensure that hevm eventually terminates. However, endstates where the timeout was reached are considered inditerminate, and will lead to a WARNING in the output. It is worthwhile trying to switch to a different SMT solver such as bitwuzla, or increasing the timeout if this happens.

Loop Iteration Limit, --ask-smt-iterations

Loops in the code cause a challenge to symbolic execution framework. In order to not run indefinitely, hevm will only explore a certain number of iterations of a loop before consideing abandoning the exploration of that branch. This number can be set via the --ask-smt-iterations flag.