Abstract
Formal model refinement aims at preserving safety and liveness properties of models. However, there is usually a verification gap between model and executed code, especially if concurrent processes are involved. The reason for this is that a manual implementation and further code optimizations can introduce implementation errors. In this paper, we present a framework that allows for formally proving a failures refinement between a CSP specification and its low-level implementation. The implementation is given in a generic unstructured language with gotos and an abstract communication instruction. We provide a failures-based denotational semantics of it with an appropriate Hoare calculus. Since failures-based refinement is compositional w.r.t. parallel composition of concurrent components and preserves safety and liveness properties, this contributes to reducing the verification gap between high-level specifications and their low-level implementations.
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
Notes
- 1.
For an introduction to denotational semantics and fixpoints see, e.g., [Rey98].
References
Bartels, B., Glesner, S.: Verification of distributed embedded real-time systems and their low-level implementation using timed CSP. In: APSEC 2011, pp. 195–202. IEEE Computer Society (2011)
Bartels, B., Jähnig, N.: Mechanized, compositional verification of low-level code. In: Badger, J.M., Rozier, K.Y. (eds.) NFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8430, pp. 98–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Gibson-Robinson, T., Armstrong, P., Boulgakov, A., Roscoe, A.W.: FDR3 — a modern refinement checker for CSP. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 187–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Gardner, W.B., Gumtie, A., Carter, J.D.: Supporting selective formalism in CSP++ with process-specific storage. In: ICESS 2015, pp. 1057–1065 (2015)
Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating sequential processes. Commun. ACM 21(8), 666–677 (1978)
Jähnig, N., Göthel, T., Glesner, S.: A denotational semantics for communicating unstructured code. In: FESCA 2015. EPTCS, vol. 178, pp. 9–21 (2015)
Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: The basics. In: Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M. (eds.) Isabelle/HOL. LNCS, vol. 2283, p. 3. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Reynolds, J.C.: Theories of Programming Languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)
Schneider, S.: Concurrent and Real Time Systems: The CSP Approach. Wiley, New York (1999)
Saabas, A., Uustalu, T.: A compositional natural semantics and hoare logic for low-level languages. SOS 156(1), 151–168 (2005). Elsevier
Tews, H.: Verifying Duff’s device: a simple compositional denotational semantics for goto and computed jumps. Technical report, Technische Universität Dresden (2004)
Zwiers, J.: Compositionality, Concurrency, and Partial Correctness. LNCS, vol. 321. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)
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
Jähnig, N., Göthel, T., Glesner, S. (2016). Refinement-Based Verification of Communicating Unstructured Code. In: De Nicola, R., Kühn, E. (eds) Software Engineering and Formal Methods. SEFM 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9763. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41591-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41591-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41590-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41591-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)