Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Non-monotonic Refinement of Control Abstraction for Concurrent Programs

  • Conference paper
Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis (ATVA 2010)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 6252))

Abstract

Verification based on abstraction refinement is a successful technique for checking program properties. Conventional abstraction refinement schemes increase precision of the abstraction monotonically, and therefore cannot recover from overly precise refinement decisions. This problem is exacerbated in the context of multi-threaded programs, where keeping track of all control locations in concurrent threads is the inevitably discovered abstraction and is prohibitively expensive. In contrast to the conventional (partition refinement-based) approaches, non-monotonic abstraction refinement schemes rely on re-partitioning and have promising potential for avoiding excess of precision. In this paper, we propose a non-monotonic refinement scheme for the control abstraction (of concurrent programs). Our approach employs a constraint solver to discover re-partitioning at each refinement step. An experimental evaluation of our non-monotonic control abstraction refinement on a collection of multi-threaded verification benchmarks indicates its effectiveness in practice.

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

Access this chapter

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 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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball, T., Podelski, A., Rajamani, S.K.: Relative completeness of abstraction refinement for software model checking. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, p. 158. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Ball, T., Rajamani, S.: Automatically validating temporal safety properties of interfaces. In: Dwyer, M.B. (ed.) SPIN 2001. LNCS, vol. 2057, p. 103. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: The SLAM project: debugging system software via static analysis. In: POPL (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Majumdar, R., Rybalchenko, A.: Path invariants. In: PLDI (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Blanchet, B., Cousot, P., Cousot, R., Feret, J., Mauborgne, L., Miné, A., Monniaux, D., Rival, X.: A static analyzer for large safety-critical software. In: PLDI (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chaki, S., Clarke, E.M., Groce, A., Ouaknine, J., Strichman, O., Yorav, K.: Efficient verification of sequential and concurrent C programs. Formal Methods in System Design 25(2-3), 129–166 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Clarke, E.M., 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. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen, A., Namjoshi, K.S.: Local proofs for global safety properties. Formal Methods in System Design 34(2), 104–125 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Cook, B., Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Termination proofs for systems code. In: PLDI (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: POPL (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cousot, P., Ganty, P., Raskin, J.-F.: Fixpoint-guided abstraction refinements. In: Riis Nielson, H., Filé, G. (eds.) SAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4634, pp. 333–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. de Moura, L.M., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Ferrara, P., Logozzo, F., Fähndrich, M.: Safer unsafe code for.NET. In: OOPSLA (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Flanagan, C., Freund, S.N., Qadeer, S.: Thread-modular verification for shared-memory programs. In: Le Métayer, D. (ed.) ESOP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2305, pp. 262–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Flanagan, C., Qadeer, S.: Thread-modular model checking. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 213–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Glusman, M., Kamhi, G., Mador-Haim, S., Fraer, R., Vardi, M.Y.: Multiple-counterexample guided iterative abstraction refinement: An industrial evaluation. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 176–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Gulavani, B.S., Chakraborty, S., Nori, A.V., Rajamani, S.K.: Automatically refining abstract interpretations. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 443–458. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Gulavani, B.S., Rajamani, S.K.: Counterexample driven refinement for abstract interpretation. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 474–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Gupta, A., Clarke, E.M.: Reconsidering CEGAR: Learning good abstractions without refinement. In: ICCD, pp. 591–598 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gupta, A., Popeea, C., Rybalchenko, A.: (2009) (in preparation), http://www.model.in.tum.de/~popeea/research/environment.pdf

  21. Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., McMillan, K.L.: Abstractions from proofs. In: POPL (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Lazy abstraction. In: POPL (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ivancic, F., Yang, Z., Ganai, M.K., Gupta, A., Shlyakhter, I., Ashar, P.: F-soft: Software verification platform. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 301–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Jhala, R., McMillan, K.L.: Array abstractions from proofs. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 193–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Lamport, L.: A new solution of Dijkstra’s concurrent programming problem. ACM Commun. 17(8), 453–455 (1974)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Lu, S., Park, S., Seo, E., Zhou, Y.: Learning from mistakes: a comprehensive study on real world concurrency bug characteristics. In: ASPLOS (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Temporal verification of reactive systems: safety. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. McMillan, K.L.: Lazy abstraction with interpolants. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 123–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. McMillan, K.L., Amla, N.: Automatic abstraction without counterexamples. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: ARMC: The logical choice for software model checking with abstraction refinement. In: PADL (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Qadeer, S., Wu, D.: KISS: keep it simple and sequential. In: PLDI, pp. 14–24 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ranzato, F., Rossi-Doria, O., Tapparo, F.: A forward-backward abstraction refinement algorithm. In: Logozzo, F., Peled, D.A., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) VMCAI 2008. LNCS, vol. 4905, pp. 248–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität München, Germany

    Ashutosh Gupta, Corneliu Popeea & Andrey Rybalchenko

Authors
  1. Ashutosh Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Corneliu Popeea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrey Rybalchenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Paris, 75205, Paris, France

    Ahmed Bouajjani

  2. National University of Singapore, Republic of Singapore

    Wei-Ngan Chin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gupta, A., Popeea, C., Rybalchenko, A. (2010). Non-monotonic Refinement of Control Abstraction for Concurrent Programs. In: Bouajjani, A., Chin, WN. (eds) Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis. ATVA 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6252. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15643-4_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15643-4_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-15642-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-15643-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation