Abstract
Invariants are a standard concept for reasoning about unbounded loops since Floyd-Hoare logic in the late 1960s. For real-world languages like Java, loop invariant rules tend to become extremely complex. The main reason is non-standard control flow induced by return, throw, break, and continue statements, possibly combined and nested inside inner loops and try blocks. We propose the concept of a loop scope which gives rise to a new approach for the design of invariant rules. This permits “sandboxed” deduction-based symbolic execution of loop bodies which in turn allows a modular analysis even of complex loops. Based on the new concept we designed a loop invariant rule for Java that has full language coverage and implemented it in the program verification system KeY. Its main advantages are (1) much increased comprehensibility, which made it considerably easier to argue for its soundness, (2) simpler and easier to understand proof obligations, (3) a substantially decreased number of symbolic execution steps and sizes of resulting proofs in a representative set of experiments. We also show that the new rule, in combination with fully automatic symbolic state merging, realizes even greater proof size reduction and helps to address the state explosion problem of symbolic execution.
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
Ahrendt, W., Beckert, B. (eds.): Deductive Software Verification - The KeY Book. LNCS, vol. 10001. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49812-6
Barnett, M., Chang, B.-Y.E., DeLine, R., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M.: Boogie: a modular reusable verifier for object-oriented programs. In: Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 364–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11804192_17
Bobot, F., Filliâtre, J.C., et al.: Why3: Shepherd your herd of provers. In: Boogie 2011: First International Workshop on IVL, pp. 53–64 (2011)
Cadar, C., Dunbar, D., et al.: KLEE: unassisted and automatic generation of high-coverage tests for complex systems programs. In: 8th USENIX Conference on OSDI, pp. 209–224. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2008)
Cadar, C., Sen, K.: Symbolic execution for software testing: three decades later. Commun. ACM 56(2), 82–90 (2013)
Cok, D.R.: OpenJML: software verification for Java 7 using JML, OpenJDK, and Eclipse. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on FIDE, pp. 79–92 (2014)
Cuoq, P., Kirchner, F., Kosmatov, N., Prevosto, V., Signoles, J., Yakobowski, B.: Frama-C. In: Eleftherakis, G., Hinchey, M., Holcombe, M. (eds.) SEFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7504, pp. 233–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33826-7_16
Dannenberg, R., Ernst, G.: Formal program verification using symbolic execution. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE–8(1), 43–52 (1982)
Filliâtre, J.C.: Deductive software verification. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (STTT) 13(5), 397–403 (2011)
Flanagan, C., Saxe, J.B.: Avoiding exponential explosion: generating compact verification conditions. SIGPLAN Not. 36(3), 193–205 (2001)
Gouw, S., Rot, J., Boer, F.S., Bubel, R., Hähnle, R.: OpenJDK’s Java.utils.Collection.sort() is broken: the good, the bad and the worst case. In: Kroening, D., Păsăreanu, C.S. (eds.) CAV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9206, pp. 273–289. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_16
Hentschel, M., Hähnle, R., Bubel, R.: Visualizing unbounded symbolic execution. In: Seidl, M., Tillmann, N. (eds.) TAP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8570, pp. 82–98. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09099-3_7
Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(10), 576–580 (1969)
Jaffar, J., Murali, V., et al.: Boosting concolic testing via interpolation. In: Proceedings of 9th Joint Meeting on FSE, pp. 48–58. USA. ACM, New York (2013)
Marché, C., Paulin-Mohring, C., et al.: The KRAKATOA tool for certification of JAVA/JAVACARD programs annotated in JML. J. Logic Algebr. Program. 58(1–2), 89–106 (2004)
Pariente, D., Ledinot, E.: Formal verification of industrial C code using Frama-C: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on FoVeOOS, p. 205 (2010)
Păsăreanu, C.S., Visser, W.: Verification of Java programs using symbolic execution and invariant generation. In: Graf, S., Mounier, L. (eds.) SPIN 2004. LNCS, vol. 2989, pp. 164–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24732-6_13
Scheurer, D., Hähnle, R., Bubel, R.: A general lattice model for merging symbolic execution branches. In: Ogata, K., Lawford, M., Liu, S. (eds.) ICFEM 2016. LNCS, vol. 10009, pp. 57–73. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47846-3_5
Steinhöfel, D., Wasser, N.: A new invariant rule for the analysis of loops with non-standard control flows. Technical report, TU Darmstadt (2017). http://tinyurl.com/loop-scopes-tr
Stenzel, K.: Verification of Java card programs. Ph.D. thesis, University of Augsburg, Germany (2005)
Vogels, F., Jacobs, B., et al.: Featherweight VeriFast. LMCS 11(3), 1–57 (2015)
Wasser, N.: Automatic generation of specifications using verification tools. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, January 2016
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Steinhöfel, D., Wasser, N. (2017). A New Invariant Rule for the Analysis of Loops with Non-standard Control Flows. In: Polikarpova, N., Schneider, S. (eds) Integrated Formal Methods. IFM 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10510. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66845-1_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66845-1_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66844-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66845-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)