Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Lightweight Technique for Distributed and Incremental Program Verification

  • Conference paper
Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments (VSTTE 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 7152))

Abstract

Applying automated verification to industrial code bases creates a significant computational task even when the individual conditions to be checked are trivial. This affects the wall clock time taken to verify the program and has knock-on effects on how the tools are used and on project management. In this paper a simple and lightweight technique for adding incremental and distributed capabilities to a program verification system is given. Experiments with an implementation of the technique for the SPARK tool set show that it can yield an average 29 fold speed increase in incremental use and near optimal speedup in distributed use. Critically, this gives a qualitative change in how automated verification is used in a large commercial project.

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. Altran Praxis: SPARK Pro. (2009), http://www.adacore.com/home/products/sparkpro

  2. Barnes, J.: High Integrity Software - The SPARK Approach to Saftey and Security, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bergeretti, Carré.: Information-flow and data-flow analysis of while programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 7, 37–61 (1985)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bergeretti, J.F.: An algebraic approach to program analysis: Foundations of a practical analysis system. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Department of Electronics (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berghofer, S.: Verification of Dependable Software using SPARK and Isabelle. In: Brauer, J., Roveri, M., Tews, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Systems Software Verification (SSV 2011). pp. 48–65. TU Dresden (August 2011); technical report TUDIFI11

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bobot, F., Filliâtre, J.C., Marché, C., Paskevich, A.: Why3: Shepherd your herd of provers. In: Rustan, et al. [32], pp. 53–64

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brain, M., Schanda, F.: The Riposte counter example generator (2011), http://forge.open-do.org/projects/riposte

  8. Cohen, E., Dahlweid, M., Hillebrand, M., Leinenbach, D., Moskal, M., Santen, T., Schulte, W., Tobies, S.: Vcc: A Practical System for Verifying Concurrent C. In: Berghofer, S., Nipkow, T., Urban, C., Wenzel, M. (eds.) TPHOLs 2009. LNCS, vol. 5674, pp. 23–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Conchon, S., Contejean, E., Kanig, J.: Ergo: A theorem prover for polymorphic first-order logic modulo theories (2006), http://ergo.lri.fr/papers/ergo.ps

  10. Conway, C.L., Namjoshi, K.S., Dams, D., Edwards, S.A.: Incremental Algorithms for Inter-Procedural Analysis of Safety Properties. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 449–461. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. CVC3: An automatic theorem prover for Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) (2006), http://www.cs.nyu.edu/acsys/cvc3

  12. D’Silva, V., Kroening, D., Weissenbacher, G.: A survey of automated techniques for formal software verification. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 27(7), 1165–1178 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dutertre, B., de Moura, L.: The YICES SMT Solver (2006), http://yices.csl.sri.com/tool-paper.pdf

  14. Eichberg, M., Kahl, M., Saha, D., Mezini, M., Ostermann, K.: Automatic Incrementalization of Prolog Based Static Analyses. In: Hanus, M. (ed.) PADL 2007. LNCS, vol. 4354, pp. 109–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Filliâtre, J.C., Marché, C.: The Why/Krakatoa/Caduceus Platform for Deductive Program Verification. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 173–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Fitzpatrick, B., et al.: Memcached - a distributed memory object caching system (2003), http://memcached.org

  17. Gelernter, D., Carriero, N., Chandran, S., Chang, S.: Parallel programming in Linda. In: ICPP, pp. 255–263 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Guitton, J., Kanig, J., Moy, Y.: Why hi-lite ada? In: Rustan, et al. [32], pp. 27–39

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hennessy, J.L., Patterson, D.: Computer Architecture, A Quantitative Approach, 4th edn. Morgan Kaufmann (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sanvido, M.A.A.: Extreme Model Checking. In: Dershowitz, N. (ed.) Verification: Theory and Practice. LNCS, vol. 2772, pp. 332–358. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Hovemeyer, D., Pugh, W.: Finding bugs is easy. SIGPLAN Not. 39, 92–106 (2004), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1052883.1052895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jackson, P.B., Passmore, G.O.: Proving SPARK Verification Conditions with SMT solvers (December 2009), http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/pbj/papers/vct-dec09-draft.pdf

  23. James, P.R., Chalin, P.: Esc4: A modern caching ESC for Java. In: Huisman, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Specification and Verification of Component-Based Systems, pp. 19–26. Association for Computing Machinery (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  24. James, P.R., Chalin, P.: Faster and more complete extended static checking for the java modeling language. Journal of Automated Reasoning 44(1-2), 145–174 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Lahiri, S.K., Qadeer, S., Rakamarić, Z.: Static and Precise Detection of Concurrency Errors in Systems Code using SMT Solvers. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 509–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Leavens, G.T., Baker, A.L., Ruby, C.: Preliminary design of jml: a behavioral interface specification language for java. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 31, 1–38 (2006), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1127878.1127884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Leino, K.: Dafny: An Automatic Program Verifier for Functional Correctness. In: Clarke, E.M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR-16 2010. LNCS, vol. 6355, pp. 348–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Lopes, N.P., Rybalchenko, A.: Distributed and Predictable Software Model Checking. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D. (eds.) VMCAI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 340–355. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.S.: 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 

  30. Moy, Y.: Automatic Modular Static Safety Checking for C Programs. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Sud (January 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ranise, S., Tinelli, C.: The SMT-LIB format: An initial proposal. In: Workshop on Pragmatics of Decision Procedures in Automated Reasoning (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rustan, K., Leino, M., Moskal, M. (eds.): First International Workshop on Intermediate Verification Languages (August 2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK

    Martin Brain

  2. Altran Praxis Limited, 20 Manvers Street, Bath, BA1 1PX, UK

    Martin Brain & Florian Schanda

Authors
  1. Martin Brain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florian Schanda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. MS 301-285, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, 91109, Pasadena, CA, USA

    Rajeev Joshi

  2. ETH Zürich, Universitätstr. 6, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland

    Peter Müller

  3. Department of Computer Science, University of Freiburg, Georges-Köhler-Allee 52, 79110, Freiburg, Germany

    Andreas Podelski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Brain, M., Schanda, F. (2012). A Lightweight Technique for Distributed and Incremental Program Verification. In: Joshi, R., Müller, P., Podelski, A. (eds) Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments. VSTTE 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7152. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27705-4_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27705-4_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-27704-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-27705-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation