Abstract
At present static verifiers, which are based on Counterexample Guided Abstraction Refinement (CEGAR), can prove correctness of a program against a specified requirement, find its violation in a program and stop analysis or exhaust the given resources without producing any useful result. If we use this approach for checking several requirements at once, then finding a first violation of some requirement or exhausting resources for some requirement will prevent checking the program against other requirements. In particular we may miss violations of some requirements. That is why in practice each requirement to the program is usually checked separately. However, static verifiers perform similar actions during checking of the same program against different requirements and thus a lot of resources are wasted. This paper presents a new CEGAR-based method for software static verification, that is aimed at checking programs against several requirements at once and getting the same result as basic CEGAR, which checks requirements one by one. In order to do it the suggested method divides resources among requirements equally and continues analysis after finding violation of requirement excluding that requirement. We used Linux kernel modules to conduct experiments, in which implementation of the suggested method reduced total verification time by 5 times. The total number of divergent results in comparison with CEGAR was about 2 %.
The research was carried out with funding from the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia (the project unique identifier is RFMEFI61614X0015).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Beyer, D.: Competition on software verification. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 504–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Beyer, D.: Software verification and verifiable witnesses. In: Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) TACAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 401–416. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)
Khoroshilov, A., Mutilin, V., Novikov, E., Shved, P., Strakh, A.: Towards an open framework for C verification tools benchmarking. In: Clarke, E., Virbitskaite, I., Voronkov, A. (eds.) PSI 2011. LNCS, vol. 7162, pp. 179–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Website: problems found in Linux kernels. http://linuxtesting.org/results/ldv
Shved, P., Mandrykin, M., Mutilin, V.: Predicate analysis with BLAST 2.7. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 525–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Beyer, D., Henzinger, T., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: The software model checker BLAST. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 9(5–6), 505–525 (2007)
Beyer, D., Keremoglu, M.E.: CPAchecker: a tool for configurable software verification. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 184–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Novikov, E.: An approach to implementation of aspect-oriented programming for C. Program. Comput. Softw. 39(4), 194–206 (2013)
Beyer, D., Löwe, S., Novikov, E., Stahlbauer, A., Wendler, P.: Precision reuse for efficient regression verification. In: Proceedings of the 9th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2013), St. Petersburg, Russia, 18–26 August 2013, pp. 389–399. ACM (2013)
Beyer, D., Keremoglu, M., Wendler, P.: Predicate abstraction with adjustable-block encoding. In: Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD 2010 (2010)
Beyer, D., Löwe, S.: Explicit-state software model checking based on CEGAR and interpolation. In: Cortellessa, V., Varró, D. (eds.) FASE 2013 (ETAPS 2013). LNCS, vol. 7793, pp. 146–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Mandrykin, M., Mutilin, V., Khoroshilov, A.: Vvedenie v metod CEGAR - utochnenie abstraktsii po kontrprimeram [Introduction to CEGAR - Counter-Example Guided Abstraction Refinement]. Trudy ISP RAN [Proc. ISP RAS] 24, 219–292 (2013)
Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Keremoglu, M.E., Wendler, P.: Conditional model checking: a technique to pass information between verifiers. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE 2012, Cary, NC, 10–17 November 2012. ACM (2012)
Mordan, V., Novikov, E.: Minimizing the number of static verifier traces to reduce time for finding bugs in Linux kernel modules. In: Proceedings of the Spring/Summer Young Researchers Colloquium on Software Engineering, vol. 8 (2014)
Zakharov, I., Mandrykin, M., Mutilin, V., Novikov, E., Petrenko, A., Khoroshilov, A.: Configurable toolset for static verification of operating systems kernel modules. Program. Comput. Softw. 41(1), 49–64 (2015)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Mordan, V., Mutilin, V. (2016). Checking Several Requirements at once by CEGAR. In: Mazzara, M., Voronkov, A. (eds) Perspectives of System Informatics. PSI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9609. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41579-6_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41579-6_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41578-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41579-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)