Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Tests and Proofs

TAP 2017: Tests and Proofs pp 3–20Cite as

Abstraction Refinement for the Analysis of Software Product Lines

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10375))

Abstract

We generalize the principle of counter example-guided data abstraction refinement (CEGAR) to guided refinement of Software Product Lines (SPL) and of analysis tools. We also add a problem decomposition step. The result is a framework for formal SPL analysis via guided refinement and divide-and-conquer, through sound orchestration of multiple tools.

This work has been partially supported by: EU Horizon 2020 project HyVar (www.hyvar-project.eu), GA No. 644298; ICT COST Action IC1402 ARVI (www.cost-arvi.eu); Ateneo/CSP D16D15000360005 project RunVar (runvar-project.di.unito.it); project FormbaR (formbar.raillab.de), Innovationsallianz TU Darmstadt-Deutsche Bahn Netz AG.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This abstract description of CEGAR leaves many issues open: how to make sure that the refinement loop terminates? How to select a counter example? How to compute the refinement? On each of these questions a considerable literature exists, but this is not the focus of this paper.

  2. 2.

    This is a coarse-grained refinement step. Alternatively, one could branch into \(|\bar{F}'|\) many refinements of the form \({L}[{\bar{F}'']}\) with \(\bar{F}''\subseteq \bar{F}'\).

  3. 3.

    In the standard workflow of KeY abstractions are computed on demand and are mainly used for loop invariant generation and state merging.

  4. 4.

    Another way to view this is to abstract all data to a single value.

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  2. Albert, E., Arenas, P., Flores-Montoya, A., Genaim, S., Gómez-Zamalloa, M., Martin-Martin, E., Puebla, G., Román-Díez, G.: SACO: static analyzer for concurrent objects. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 562–567. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Albert, E., Bubel, R., Genaim, S., Hähnle, R., Díez, G.R.: A formal verification framework for static analysis – as well as its instantiation to the resource analyzer COSTA and formal verification tool KeY. Softw. Syst. Model. 15(4), 987–1012 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Albert, E., Gómez-Zamalloa, M., Isabel, M.: Combining static analysis and testing for deadlock detection. In: Ábrahám, E., Huisman, M. (eds.) IFM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9681, pp. 409–424. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33693-0_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Apel, S., Batory, D.S., Kästner, C., Saake, G.: Feature-Oriented Software Product Lines: Concepts and Implementation. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Apel, S., Speidel, H., Wendler, P., von Rhein, A., Beyer, D.: Detection of feature interactions using feature-aware verification. In: Alexander, P., Pasareanu, C.S., Hosking, J.G. (eds.) 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), Lawrence, KS, USA, pp. 372–375. IEEE Computer Society (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bak, K.: Modeling and analysis of software product line variability in clafer. Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bak, K., Diskin, Z., Antkiewicz, M., Czarnecki, K., Wasowski, A.: Clafer: unifying class and feature modeling. Softw. Syst. Model. 15(3), 811–845 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Batory, D.S.: A theory of modularity for automated software development. In: France, R.B., Ghosh, S., Leavens, G.T. (eds.) Companion Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Modularity, Fort Collins, CO, USA, pp. 1–10. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Batory, D.S., Sarvela, J.N., Rauschmayer, A.: Scaling step-wise refinement. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(6), 355–371 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beckert, B., Hähnle, R.: Reasoning and verification. IEEE Intell. Syst. 29(1), 20–29 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bettini, L., Damiani, F., Schaefer, I.: Compositional type checking of delta-oriented software product lines. Acta Inform. 50(2), 77–122 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Beyer, D., Dangl, M., Dietsch, D., Heizmann, M.: Correctness witnesses: exchanging verification results between verifiers. In: Zimmermann, T., Cleland-Huang, J., Su, Z. (eds.) Proceedings of 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE, Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 326–337. ACM (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Beyer, D., Lemberger, T.: Symbolic execution with CEGAR. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 195–211. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Bodden, E., Tolêdo, T., Ribeiro, M., Brabrand, C., Borba, P., Mezini, M.: Spl\(^{\text{lift}}\): statically analyzing software product lines in minutes instead of years. In: Boehm, H., Flanagan, C. (eds.) ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI, Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 355–364. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bubel, R., Damiani, F., Hähnle, R., Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O., Schaefer, I., Yu, I.C.: Proof repositories for compositional verification of evolving software systems. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) Transactions on Foundations for Mastering Change I. LNCS, vol. 9960, pp. 130–156. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46508-1_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Bubel, R., Din, C., Hähnle, R.: Verification of variable software: an experience report. In: Beckert, B., Marché, C. (eds.) Pre-Proceedings International Conference on Formal Verification of Object-Oriented Software (FoVeOOS), Paris, France (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chimento, J.M., Ahrendt, W., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: StaRVOOrS : a tool for combined static and runtime verification of Java. In: Bartocci, E., Majumdar, R. (eds.) RV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9333, pp. 297–305. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23820-3_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Clarke, D., Diakov, N., Hähnle, R., Johnsen, E.B., Schaefer, I., Schäfer, J., Schlatte, R., Wong, P.Y.H.: Modeling spatial and temporal variability with the HATS abstract behavioral modeling language. In: Bernardo, M., Issarny, V. (eds.) SFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6659, pp. 417–457. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21455-4_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. 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). doi:10.1007/10722167_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison Wesley Longman, Boston (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Damiani, F., Lienhardt, M.: On type checking delta-oriented product lines. In: Ábrahám, E., Huisman, M. (eds.) IFM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9681, pp. 47–62. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33693-0_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Damiani, F., Owe, O., Dovland, J., Schaefer, I., Johnsen, E.B., Yu, I.C.: A transformational proof system for delta-oriented programming. In: SPLC (2), pp. 53–60 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Damiani, F., Schaefer, I.: Family-based analysis of type safety for delta-oriented software product lines. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7609, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34026-0_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Darvas, Á., Hähnle, R., Sands, D.: A theorem proving approach to analysis of secure information flow. In: Hutter, D., Ullmann, M. (eds.) SPC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3450, pp. 193–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-32004-3_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Dimovski, A.S., Wąsowski, A.: Variability-specific abstraction refinement for family-based model checking. In: Huisman, M., Rubin, J. (eds.) FASE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10202, pp. 406–423. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-54494-5_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Dziobek, C., Weiland, J.: Variantenmodellierung und -konfiguration eingebetteter automotive Software mit Simulink. In: Giese, H., Huhn, M., Nickel, U., Schätz, B. (eds.) Dagstuhl-Workshop MBEES: Modellbasierte Entwicklung eingebetteter Systeme V. Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany. Informatik-Bericht, vol. 2009-01, pp. 36–45. TU Braunschweig, Institut für Software Systems Engineering (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Giachino, E., Laneve, C., Lienhardt, M.: A framework for deadlock detection in core ABS. Softw. Syst. Model. 15(4), 1013–1048 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Grönniger, H., Hartmann, J., Krahn, H., Kriebel, S., Rothhardt, L., Rumpe, B.: View-centric modeling of automotive logical architectures. In: Giese, H., Huhn, M., Nickel, U., Schätz, B. (eds.) Dagstuhl-Workshop MBEES: Modellbasierte Entwicklung eingebetteter Systeme IV, Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany. Informatik-Bericht, vol. 2008-2, pp. 3–12. TU Braunschweig, Institut für Software Systems Engineering (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hähnle, R., Schaefer, I.: A Liskov principle for delta-oriented programming. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7609, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34026-0_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Hammer, C., Krinke, J., Snelting, G.: Information flow control for Java based on path conditions in dependence graphs. In: IEEE International Symposium on Secure Software Engineering (ISSSE), pp. 87–96. IEEE, March 2006

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jackson, M., Zave, P.: Distributed feature composition: a virtual architecture for telecommunications services. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24(10), 831–847 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Küsters, R., Truderung, T., Beckert, B., Bruns, D., Kirsten, M., Mohr, M.: A hybrid approach for proving noninterference of Java programs. In: Fournet, C., Hicks, M.W., Viganò, L. (eds.) IEEE 28th Computer Security Foundations Symposium, CSF, Verona, Italy, pp. 305–319. IEEE Computer Society (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sabelfeld, A., Myers, A.C.: Language-based information-flow security. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 21(1), 5–19 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Schaefer, I., Bettini, L., Bono, V., Damiani, F., Tanzarella, N.: Delta-oriented programming of software product lines. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds.) SPLC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6287, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15579-6_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Schaefer, I., Damiani, F.: Pure delta-oriented programming. In: Apel, S., Batory, D., Czarnecki, K., Heidenreich, F., Kästner, C., Nierstrasz, O. (eds.) Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Feature-Oriented Software Development (FOSD 2010), Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp. 49–56. ACM Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Schaefer, I., Rabiser, R., Clarke, D., Bettini, L., Benavides, D., Botterweck, G., Pathak, A., Trujillo, S., Villela, K.: Software diversity: state of the art and perspectives. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 14(5), 477–495 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Scheben, C., Greiner, S.: Information flow analysis. In: Ahrendt et al. [1], chap. 13, pp. 453–472 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Thüm, T., Apel, S., Kästner, C., Schaefer, I., Saake, G.: A classification and survey of analysis strategies for software product lines. ACM Comput. Surv. 47(1), 6:1–6:45 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Thüm, T., Schaefer, I., Hentschel, M., Apel, S.: Family-based deductive verification of software product lines. In: Ostermann, K., Binder, W. (eds.) Generative Programming and Component Engineering, GPCE 2012, Dresden, Germany, pp. 11–20. ACM (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Thüm, T., Schaefer, I., Kuhlemann, M., Apel, S.: Proof composition for deductive verification of software product lines. In: Proceedings of International Workshop Variability-Intensive Systems Testing, Validation and Verification (VAST), pp. 270–277. IEEE Computer Society (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  45. von Rhein, A., Thüm, T., Schaefer, I., Liebig, J., Apel, S.: Variability encoding: from compile-time to load-time variability. J. Log. Algebr. Methods Program. 85(1), 125–145 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Wasser, N., Bubel, R., Hähnle, R.: Abstract interpretation. In: Ahrendt et al. [1], chap. 6, pp. 167–189 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of Antonio Flores Montoya who ran a number of experiments with SACO for us and helped with their analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Torino, Torino, Italy

    Ferruccio Damiani & Michael Lienhardt

  2. University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany

    Reiner Hähnle

Authors
  1. Ferruccio Damiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Reiner Hähnle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Lienhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reiner Hähnle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany

    Sebastian Gabmeyer

  2. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Einar Broch Johnsen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Damiani, F., Hähnle, R., Lienhardt, M. (2017). Abstraction Refinement for the Analysis of Software Product Lines. In: Gabmeyer, S., Johnsen, E. (eds) Tests and Proofs. TAP 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10375. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61467-0_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61467-0_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61466-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61467-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation