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
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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)
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)
Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: The SLAM project: debugging system software via static analysis. In: POPL (2002)
Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Majumdar, R., Rybalchenko, A.: Path invariants. In: PLDI (2007)
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)
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)
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)
Cohen, A., Namjoshi, K.S.: Local proofs for global safety properties. Formal Methods in System Design 34(2), 104–125 (2009)
Cook, B., Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Termination proofs for systems code. In: PLDI (2006)
Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: POPL (1977)
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)
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)
Ferrara, P., Logozzo, F., Fähndrich, M.: Safer unsafe code for.NET. In: OOPSLA (2008)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Gupta, A., Clarke, E.M.: Reconsidering CEGAR: Learning good abstractions without refinement. In: ICCD, pp. 591–598 (2005)
Gupta, A., Popeea, C., Rybalchenko, A.: (2009) (in preparation), http://www.model.in.tum.de/~popeea/research/environment.pdf
Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., McMillan, K.L.: Abstractions from proofs. In: POPL (2004)
Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Lazy abstraction. In: POPL (2002)
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)
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)
Lamport, L.: A new solution of Dijkstra’s concurrent programming problem. ACM Commun. 17(8), 453–455 (1974)
Lu, S., Park, S., Seo, E., Zhou, Y.: Learning from mistakes: a comprehensive study on real world concurrency bug characteristics. In: ASPLOS (2008)
Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Temporal verification of reactive systems: safety. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
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)
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)
Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: ARMC: The logical choice for software model checking with abstraction refinement. In: PADL (2007)
Qadeer, S., Wu, D.: KISS: keep it simple and sequential. In: PLDI, pp. 14–24 (2004)
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)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)