Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lightweight Reasoning about Program Correctness

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Automated verification tools vary widely in the types of properties they are able to analyze, the complexity of their algorithms, and the amount of necessary user involvement. In this paper we propose a framework for step-wise automatic verification and describe a lightweight scalable program analysis tool that combines abstraction and model checking. The tool guarantees that its True and False answers are sound with respect to the original system. We also check the effectiveness of the tool on an implementation of the Safety-Injection System.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bharadwaj R, Heitmeyer C. Model checking complete requirements specifications using abstraction. Journal of Automated Software Engineering 1999;6(1).

  • Bruns G, Godefroid P. Model checking partial state spaces with 3-valued temporal logics. In: Proceedings of CAV’99, vol. 1633 of LNCS, 1999:274-287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns G, Godefroid P. Generalized model checking: Reasoning about partial state spaces. In: Proceedings of CONCUR’00, vol. 877 of LNCS, 2000:168-182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bultan T, Gerber R, League C. Verifying systems with integer constraints and boolean predicates: A composite approach. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA’98), 1998:113-123.

  • Bultan T, Gerber R, League C. Composite model checking: Verification with type-specific symbolic representations. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 2000;9(1):3-50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bultan T, Gerber R, Pugh W. Model checking concurrent systems with unbounded integer variables: Symbolic representations, approximations and experimental results. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 1999.

  • Chan W, Anderson RJ, Beame P, Jones DH, Notkin D, Warner WE. Decoupling synchronization from local control for efficient symbolic model checking of statecharts. In: Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’99), 1999:142-151.

  • Chechik M, Easterbrook S, Petrovykh V. Model-checking over multi-valued logics. In: Proceedings of Formal Methods Europe (FME’01), vol. 2021 of LNCS, Springer, 2001:72-98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke E, Emerson E, Sistla A. Automatic verification of finitestate concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 1986;8(2):244-263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke E, Grumberg O, Hiraishi H, Jha S, Long D, McMillan K, Ness L. Verification of the futurebus+ cache coherence protocol. In: Formal Methods in System Design 1995;6:217-232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke EM, Grumberg O, Long DE. Model checking and abstraction. IEEE Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 1994;19(2).

  • Colon M, Uribe T. Generating finite-state abstractions of reactive systems using decision procedures. In: Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computer-Aided Verification, vol. 1427 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1980.

  • Corbett J, Dwyer M, Hatcliff J, Laubach S, Pasareanu C, Robby, Zheng H. Bandera: Extracting finite-state models from Java Source code. In: Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, 2000.

  • Courtois P-J, Parnas DL. Documentation for safety critical software. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Software Engineering, 1993:315-323.

  • Cousot P, Cousot R. Static determination of dynamic properties of programs. In: Proceedings of the "Colloque sur la Programmation", 1976.

  • Cousot P, Cousot R. Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: Proceedings of the 4th POPL, Los Angeles, California, 1977:238-252.

  • Cousot P, Cousot R. Refining model checking by abstract interpretation. Authomated Software Engineering, special issue on Automated Software Analysis 1999;6:69-95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dams D, Gerth R, Grumberg O. Abstract interpretation of reactive systems. ACMTransactions on Programming Languages and Systems 1997;2(19):253-291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dams D, Grumberg O, Gerth R. Abstract interpretation of reactive system: Abstraction-preserving ∀CTL*, ∀CTL* andCTL*, North-Holland, 1994:573-592.

  • Demartini C, Iosif R, Sisto R. dSPIN: A dynamic extension of SPIN. In: Proceedings of the 6th SPIN Workshop on Practical Aspects of Model-Checking, 1999.

  • Dill D. The Murφ verification system. In: Alur R, Henzinger T, eds. Computer-Aided Verification Computer, vol. 1102 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, New York, N.Y. Springer-Verlag,1996:390-393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding W. Analyzing infinite-state programs with abstract interpretation. Master’s Thesis, University of Toronto, Department of Computer Science, 2000.

  • Dwyer M, Carr V, Hines L. Model checking graphical user interfaces using abstractions. In: Proceedings of Foundations of Software Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godefroid P.VeriSoft:Atool for the automatic analysis of concurrent reactive software. In: Proceedings of CAV’97, 1997:476-479.

  • Havelund K, Pressburger T. Model checking Java programs using Java pathfinder. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 1999.

  • Holzmann G. The model checker SPIN. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1997;23(5):279-295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzmann G.Apractical method for verifying event-driven software. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’99), 1999:597-607.

  • Huth M, Jagadeesan R, Schmidt DA. Modal transition systems: A foundation for three-valued program analysis. In: Proceedings of 10th European Symposium on Programming (ESOP), vol. 2028 of LNCS, Springer, 2001:155-169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson D. Abstract model checking of infinite specifications. In: Proceedings of FME’94: Industrial Benefit of Formal Methods, Second International Symposium of Formal Methods Europe, 1994:519-531.

  • Jackson D, Wing J. Lightweight formal methods. IEEE Computer, 1996.

  • Janssen W, Mateescu R, Mauw S, Fennema P, van der Stappen P. Model checking for managers. In: Theoretical and Practical Aspects of SPIN Model Checking, vol. 1680 of LNCS, Springer-Verlag, 1999:92-107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamel M, Leue S. Validation of remote object invocation and objectmigration in CORBA GIOP using Promela/Spin. In: Proceedings of the 4th International SPIN Workshop (SPIN’4), Paris, France, 1998.

  • Kelb P, Dams D, Gerth R. Practical symbolic model checking of the full µ-calculus using compositional abstractions. Technical Report 95-31, Department of Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, 1995.

  • Kelly W, Maslov V, Pugh W, Rosser E, Shpeisman T, Wonnacott D. The Omega calculator and library, version 1.1.0. Technical Report, University of Maryland, 1996.

  • Kleene SC. Introduction to metamathematics. New York: Van Nostrand, 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozen D. Results on the propositional µ-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science 1983;27:334-354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen K, Thomsen B. A modal process logic. In: Third Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1988:203-210.

  • McMillan K. Symbolic model checking. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrish M. An abstract dynamic semantics for C. Technical Report TR421-mn200, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, 1997.

  • Oppen D. A 22 2 pn upper bound on the complexity of Presburger arithmetic. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 1978;16(3):323-332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardo A, Hachtel GD. Automatic abstraction techniques for propositional µ-calculus model checking. In: Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV’97), vol. 1254 of LNCS, Springer-Verlag, 1997:12- 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh W. The Omega test: A fast and practical integer programming algorithm for dependence analysis. Comm. of the ACM, 1992.

  • Sagiv M, Reps T, Wilhelm R. Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic. In: Proceedings of 26th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1999.

  • Saidi H. Modular and incremental analysis of concurrent software systems. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 1999:92-101.

  • Somenzi F. Binary decision diagrams. In Broy M, Steinbrüggen R, eds. Calculational System Design, vol. 173 of NATO Science Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, IOS Press, 1999:303-366.

  • Sreemani T, Atlee JM. Feasibility of model checking software requirements: A case study. In: Proceedings of COMPASS’96, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 1996.

  • Visser W, Park S, Penix J. Applying predicate abstraction to model check object-oriented programs.In: Proceedings of 4th International Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Practice, 2000.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 2E4

    Marsha Chechik & Wei Ding

Authors
  1. Marsha Chechik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chechik, M., Ding, W. Lightweight Reasoning about Program Correctness. Information Systems Frontiers 4, 363–377 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020883625495

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020883625495

Search

Navigation