skip to main content
10.1145/1375581.1375625acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespldiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Fair stateless model checking

Published:07 June 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

Stateless model checking is a useful state-space exploration technique for systematically testing complex real-world software. Existing stateless model checkers are limited to the verification of safety properties on terminating programs. However, realistic concurrent programs are nonterminating, a property that significantly reduces the efficacy of stateless model checking in testing them. Moreover, existing stateless model checkers are unable to verify that a nonterminating program satisfies the important liveness property of livelock-freedom, a property that requires the program to make continuous progress for any input.

To address these shortcomings, this paper argues for incorporating a fair scheduler in stateless exploration. The key contribution of this paper is an explicit scheduler that is (strongly) fair and at the same time sufficiently nondeterministic to guarantee full coverage of safety properties.We have implemented the fair scheduler in the CHESS model checker. We show through theoretical arguments and empirical evaluation that our algorithm satisfies two important properties: 1) it visits all states of a finite-state program achieving state coverage at a faster rate than existing techniques, and 2) it finds all livelocks in a finite-state program. Before this work, nonterminating programs had to be manually modified in order to apply CHESS to them. The addition of fairness has allowed CHESS to be effectively applied to real-world nonterminating programs without any modification. For example, we have successfully booted the Singularity operating system under the control of CHESS.

References

  1. S. Aggarwal, C. Courcoubetis, and P. Wolper. Adding liveness properties to coupled finite-state machines. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 12(2):303--339, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. K.R. Apt and E.-R. Olderog. Proof rules and transformations dealing with fairness. Science of Computer Programming, 3:65--100, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Krzysztof R. Apt, Nissim Francez, and Shmuel Katz. Appraising fairness in languages for distributed programming. In POPL 87: Principles of Programming Languages, pages 189--198, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Satish Chandra, Patrice Godefroid, and Christopher Palm. Software model checking in practice: an industrial case study. In ICSE 02: International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 431--441, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. E.M. Clarke and E.A. Emerson. Synthesis of synchronization skeletons for branching time temporal logic. In Logic of Programs, LNCS 131, pages 52--71. Springer-Verlag, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Nissim Francez. Fairness. In Texts and Monographs in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Matteo Frigo, Charles E. Leiserson, and Keith H. Randall. The implementation of the Cilk-5 multithreaded language. In PLDI 98: Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 212--223. ACM Press, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. P. Godefroid. Model checking for programming languages using Verisoft. In POPL 97: Principles of Programming Languages, pages 174--186. ACM Press, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Patrice Godefroid. Partial-Order Methods for the Verification of Concurrent Systems: An Approach to the State-Explosion Problem. LNCS 1032. Springer-Verlag, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Orna Grumberg, Nissim Francez, and Shmuel Katz. Fair termination of communicating processes. In PODC 84: Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 254--265. ACM Press, 1984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Joseph L. Hellerstein. Achieving service rate objectives with decay usage scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 19(8):813--825, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. G. Holzmann. The model checker SPIN. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 23(5):279--295, May 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Galen C. Hunt, Mark Aiken, Manuel Fähndrich, Chris Hawblitzeland Orion Hodson, James R. Larus, Steven Levi, Bjarne Steensgaard, David Tarditi, and Ted Wobber. Sealing OS processes to improve dependability and safety. In Proceedings of the EuroSys Conference, pages 341--354, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Radu Iosif. Exploiting heap symmetries in explicit-state model checking of software. In ASE 01: Automated Software Engineering, pages 254--261, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Michael Isard, Mihai Budiu, Yuan Yu, Andrew Birrell, and Dennis Fetterly. Dryad: distributed data-parallel programs from sequential building blocks. In Proceedings of the EuroSys Conference, pages 59--72, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. J. Kay and P. Lauder. A fair share scheduler. Communications of the ACM, 31(1):44--55, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Charles Edwin Killian, James W. Anderson, Ranjit Jhala, and Amin Vahdat. Life, death, and the critical transition: Finding liveness bugs in systems code. In NSDI 07: Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, pages 243--256, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. M. Z. Kwiatkowska. Survey of fairness notions. Information and Software Technology, 31(7):371--386, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Daniel J. Lehmann, Amir Pnueli, and Jonathan Stavi. Impartiality, justice and fairness: The ethics of concurrent termination. In ICALP 81: International Conference on Automata Languages and Programming, pages 264--277, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Daan Leijen. Futures: a concurrency library for C#. Technical Report MSR-TR-2006-162, Microsoft Research, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. M. Musuvathi, D. Park, A. Chou, D. Engler, and D. L. Dill. CMC: A pragmatic approach to model checking real code. In OSDI 02: Operating Systems Design and Implementation, pages 75--88, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Madanlal Musuvathi and Shaz Qadeer. Iterative context bounding for systematic testing of multithreaded programs. In PLDI 07: Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 446--455, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Amir Pnueli. The temporal logic of programs. In FOCS 77: Foundations of Computer Science, pages 46--57, 1977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J. Queille and J. Sifakis. Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In Fifth International Symposium on Programming, LNCS 137, pages 337--351. Springer-Verlag, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. Y. Vardi and P. Wolper. An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In LICS 86: Logic in Computer Science, pages 322--331. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. W. Visser, K. Havelund, G. Brat, and S. Park. Model checking programs. In ASE 00: Automated Software Engineering, pages 3--12, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Carl A. Waldspurger and William E. Weihl. Lottery scheduling: Flexible proportional-share resource management. In OSDI 94: Operating Systems Design and Implementation, pages 1--11, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Junfeng Yang, Paul Twohey, Dawson R. Engler, and Madanlal Musuvathi. Using model checking to find serious file system errors. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 24(4):393--423, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Fair stateless model checking

                Recommendations

                Comments

                Login options

                Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                Sign in
                • Published in

                  cover image ACM Conferences
                  PLDI '08: Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation
                  June 2008
                  396 pages
                  ISBN:9781595938602
                  DOI:10.1145/1375581
                  • General Chair:
                  • Rajiv Gupta,
                  • Program Chair:
                  • Saman Amarasinghe
                  • cover image ACM SIGPLAN Notices
                    ACM SIGPLAN Notices  Volume 43, Issue 6
                    PLDI '08
                    June 2008
                    382 pages
                    ISSN:0362-1340
                    EISSN:1558-1160
                    DOI:10.1145/1379022
                    Issue’s Table of Contents

                  Copyright © 2008 ACM

                  Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                  Publisher

                  Association for Computing Machinery

                  New York, NY, United States

                  Publication History

                  • Published: 7 June 2008

                  Permissions

                  Request permissions about this article.

                  Request Permissions

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • research-article

                  Acceptance Rates

                  Overall Acceptance Rate406of2,067submissions,20%

                  Upcoming Conference

                  PLDI '24

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader