Abstract
The presence of aliasing makes modular verification of object-oriented code difficult. If multiple clients depend on the properties of an object, one client may break a property that others depend on.
We have developed a modular verification approach based on the novel abstraction of object propositions, which combine predicates and information about object aliasing. In our methodology, even if shared data is modified, we know that an object invariant specified by a client holds. Our permission system allows verification using a mixture of linear and nonlinear reasoning. We thus offer an alternative to separation logic verification approaches. Object propositions can be more modular in some cases than separation logic because they can more effectively hide the exact aliasing relationships within a module. We validate the practicality of our approach by verifying an instance of the composite pattern. We implement our methodology in the intermediate verification language Boogie (of Microsoft Research), for the composite pattern example.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barnett, M., Chang, B.-Y.E., DeLine, R., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M.: Boogie: A modular reusable verifier for object-oriented programs. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 364–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Barnett, M., DeLine, R., Fähndrich, M., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants. Journal of Object Technology Special Issue: ECOOP 2003 workshop on Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs 3(6), 27–56 (2004)
Bierhoff, K., Aldrich, J.: Modular typestate checking of aliased objects. In: OOPSLA, pp. 301–320 (2007)
Bierhoff, K., Aldrich, J.: Permissions to specify the composite design pattern. In: Proc. of SAVCBS 2008 (2008)
Boyland, J.: Checking interference with fractional permissions. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) SAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2694, pp. 55–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Cohen, E., Moskal, M., Schulte, W., Tobies, S.: Local verification of global invariants in concurrent programs. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 480–494. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
DeLine, R., Fähndrich, M.: Typestates for objects. In: Odersky, M. (ed.) ECOOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3086, pp. 465–490. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Dinsdale-Young, T., Dodds, M., Gardner, P., Parkinson, M.J., Vafeiadis, V.: Concurrent abstract predicates. In: D’Hondt, T. (ed.) ECOOP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6183, pp. 504–528. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Fähndrich, M., DeLine, R.: Adoption and focus: practical linear types for imperative programming. In: PLDI, pp. 13–24 (2002)
Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley (1994)
Girard, J.-Y.: Linear logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 50(1), 1–102 (1987)
Igarashi, A., Pierce, B.C., Wadler, P.: Featherweight Java: a minimal core calculus for Java and GJ, pp. 132–146 (2001)
Jacobs, B., Smans, J., Piessens, F.: Verifying the composite pattern using separation logic. In: Proc. of SAVCBS 2008 (2008)
Krishnaswami, N.R., Birkedal, L., Aldrich, J.: Verifying event-driven programs using ramified frame properties. In: TLDI 2010, pp. 63–76 (2010)
Leavens, G.T., Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P.: Specification and verification challenges for sequential object-oriented programs. Form. Asp. Comput. 19, 159–189 (2007)
Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P.: Object invariants in dynamic contexts. In: Odersky, M. (ed.) ECOOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3086, pp. 491–515. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Nanevski, A., Ahmed, A., Morrisett, G., Birkedal, L.: Abstract Predicates and Mutable ADTs in Hoare Type Theory. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 189–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Nistor, L., Aldrich, J., Balzer, S., Mehnert, H.: Object propositions. Technical Report CMU-CS-13-132, Carnegie Mellon University (2013), http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~lnistor/techReportCMU-CS-13-132.pdf
Parkinson, M., Bierman, G.: Separation logic and abstraction. In: POPL, pp. 247–258 (2005)
Parnas, D.L.: On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM 15, 1053–1058 (1972)
Summers, A.J., Drossopoulou, S.: Considerate reasoning and the composite design pattern. In: Barthe, G., Hermenegildo, M. (eds.) VMCAI 2010. LNCS, vol. 5944, pp. 328–344. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Nistor, L., Aldrich, J., Balzer, S., Mehnert, H. (2014). Object Propositions. In: Jones, C., Pihlajasaari, P., Sun, J. (eds) FM 2014: Formal Methods. FM 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8442. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06410-9_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06410-9_34
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06409-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06410-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)