Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

I Can See Clearly Now: Clairvoyant Assertions for Deadlock Checking

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Logic of Software. A Tasting Menu of Formal Methods

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13360))

  • 880 Accesses

Abstract

Static analysers are traditionally used to check various correctness properties of software. In the face of refactorings that can have adverse effects on correctness, developers need to analyse the code after refactoring and possibly revert their changes. Here, we take a different approach: we capture the effect of the Hide Delegate refactoring on programs in the ABS modelling language in terms of the base program, which allows us to predict the correctness of the refactored program. In particular, we focus on deadlock-detection. The actual check is encoded with the help of an additional data structure and assertions. Developers can then attempt to discharge assertions as vacuous with the help of a theorem prover such as KeY. On the one hand, this means that we do not require a specific static analyser nor theorem prover, but rather profit from the strength and advances of modern tool support. On the other hand, developers can choose to rely on existing tests to confirm that no assertion is triggered before executing the actual refactoring. Finally, we argue the correctness of our over-approximation.

Partially supported by DIKU/CAPES project “Modern Refactoring”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://abs-models.org/.

  2. 2.

    We have adopted the new version of the syntax for object creation instead of the one presented in [16].

References

  1. Ahrendt, W., Beckert, B., Bubel, R., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H., Ulbrich, M. (eds.): Deductive Software Verification - The KeY Book - From Theory to Practice. LNCS, vol. 10001. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49812-6

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahrendt, W., Beckert, B., Bubel, R., Hähnle, R., Ulbrich, M. (eds.): Deductive Software Verification: Future Perspectives. LNCS, vol. 12345. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64354-6

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Albert, E., Flores-Montoya, A., Genaim, S., Martin-Martin, E.: May-happen-in-parallel analysis for actor-based concurrency. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 17(2), 11:1–11:39 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2824255

  4. Bubel, R., Montoya, A.F., Hähnle, R.: Analysis of executable software models. In: Bernardo, M., Damiani, F., Hähnle, R., Johnsen, E.B., Schaefer, I. (eds.) SFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8483, pp. 1–25. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07317-0_1

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Chalin, P., Kiniry, J.R., Leavens, G.T., Poll, E.: Beyond assertions: advanced specification and verification with JML and ESC/Java2. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 342–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11804192_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheon, Y., Leavens, G.T., Sitaraman, M., Edwards, S.H.: Model variables: cleanly supporting abstraction in design by contract. Softw. Pract. Exp. 35(6), 583–599 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Din, C.C., Bubel, R., Hähnle, R.: KeY-ABS: a deductive verification tool for the concurrent modelling language ABS. In: Felty, A.P., Middeldorp, A. (eds.) CADE 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9195, pp. 517–526. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21401-6_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Din, C.C., Owe, O.: Compositional reasoning about active objects with shared futures. Formal Aspects Comput. 27(3), 551–572 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-014-0322-y

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Eilertsen, A.M., Bagge, A.H., Stolz, V.: Safer refactorings. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 517–531. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Flanagan, C., Leino, K.R.M., Lillibridge, M., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B., Stata, R.: Extended static checking for Java. In: Knoop, J., Hendren, L.J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 234–245. ACM (2002). https://doi.org/10.1145/512529.512558

  11. Gedell, T.: Embedding static analysis into tableaux and sequent based frameworks. In: Beckert, B. (ed.) TABLEAUX 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3702, pp. 108–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11554554_10

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Giachino, E., Laneve, C., Lienhardt, M.: A framework for deadlock detection in core ABS. Softw. Syst. Model. 15(4), 1013–1048 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-014-0444-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gómez-Zamalloa, M., Isabel, M.: Deadlock-guided testing. IEEE Access 9, 46033–46048 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3065421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hähnle, R.: The abstract behavioral specification language: a tutorial introduction. In: Giachino, E., Hähnle, R., de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M. (eds.) FMCO 2012. LNCS, vol. 7866, pp. 1–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40615-7_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Hewitt, C., Bishop, P., Steiger, R.: A universal modular ACTOR formalism for artificial intelligence. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 235–245. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (1973). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1624775.1624804

  16. Johnsen, E.B., Hähnle, R., Schäfer, J., Schlatte, R., Steffen, M.: ABS: a core language for abstract behavioral specification. In: Aichernig, B.K., de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M. (eds.) FMCO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6957, pp. 142–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25271-6_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Kamburjan, E.: Detecting deadlocks in formal system models with condition synchronization. Electron. Commun. Eur. Assoc. Softw. Sci. Technol. 76 (2018). https://doi.org/10.14279/tuj.eceasst.76.1070

  18. Kamburjan, E., Scaletta, M., Rollshausen, N.: Crowbar: behavioral symbolic execution for deductive verification of active objects. CoRR abs/2102.10127 (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.10127

  19. Manolios, P., Vroon, D.: Integrating static analysis and general-purpose theorem proving for termination analysis. In: Osterweil, L.J., Rombach, H.D., Soffa, M.L. (eds.) 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2006), pp. 873–876. ACM (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134438

  20. Quan, L., Zongyan, Q., Liu, Z.: Formal use of design patterns and refactoring. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2008. CCIS, vol. 17, pp. 323–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88479-8_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Soares, G., Gheyi, R., Massoni, T.: Automated behavioral testing of refactoring engines. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(2), 147–162 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2012.19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Steinhöfel, D., Hähnle, R.: Abstract execution. In: ter Beek, M.H., McIver, A., Oliveira, J.N. (eds.) FM 2019. LNCS, vol. 11800, pp. 319–336. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30942-8_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Stolz, V., Pun, V.K.I., Gheyi, R.: Refactoring and active object languages. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2020. LNCS, vol. 12477, pp. 138–158. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61470-6_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway

    Ole Jørgen Abusdal, Violet Ka I Pun & Volker Stolz

  2. University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Crystal Chang Din

Authors
  1. Ole Jørgen Abusdal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Crystal Chang Din
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Violet Ka I Pun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Volker Stolz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Volker Stolz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Wolfgang Ahrendt

  2. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Bernhard Beckert

  3. TU Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany

    Richard Bubel

  4. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Einar Broch Johnsen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Abusdal, O.J., Din, C.C., Pun, V.K.I., Stolz, V. (2022). I Can See Clearly Now: Clairvoyant Assertions for Deadlock Checking. In: Ahrendt, W., Beckert, B., Bubel, R., Johnsen, E.B. (eds) The Logic of Software. A Tasting Menu of Formal Methods. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13360. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08166-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08166-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-08165-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-08166-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics