Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis

ATVA 2011: Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis pp 28–42Cite as

Making Software Verification Tools Really Work

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 6996))

Abstract

We discuss problems and barriers which stand in the way of producing verification tools that are robust, scalable and integrated in the software development cycle. Our analysis is that these barriers span a spectrum from theoretical, through practical and even logistical issues. Theoretical issues are the inherent complexity of program verification and the absence of a common, accepted semantic model in tools. Practical hurdles include the challenges arising from real-world systems features, such as floating-point arithmetic and weak memory. Logistical obstacles we identify are the lack of standard benchmarks to drive tool quality and efficiency, and the difficulty for academic research institutions of allocating resources to tool development. We propose simple measures which we, as a community, could adopt to make the design of serious verification tools easier and more credible. Our long-term vision is for the community to produce tools that are indispensable for a developer but so seamlessly integrated into a development environment, as to be invisible.

Supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under grants no. EP/G051100/1 and EP/H017585/1.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adve, S., Hill, M.: Weak Ordering – A New Definition. In: ISCA (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ball, T., Rajamani, S.: Boolean programs: A model and process for software analysis. Tech. Rep. 2000-14, Microsoft Research (February 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ball, T., Bounimova, E., Kumar, R., Levin, V.: SLAM2: Static driver verification with under 4% false alarms. In: FMCAD, pp. 35–42. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ball, T., Bounimova, E., Levin, V., Kumar, R., Lichtenberg, J.: The static driver verifier research platform. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 119–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Ball, T., Rajamani, S.: The SLAM project: debugging system software via static analysis. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 1–3. ACM, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: The SLAM toolkit. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.) CAV 2001. LNCS, vol. 2102, pp. 260–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: SLIC: a specification language for interface checking (of C). Tech. Rep. MSR-TR-2001-21, Microsoft Research (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Barnett, M., DeLine, R., Fähndrich, M., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W., Venter, H.: The Spec# programming system: Challenges and directions. In: Meyer, B., Woodcock, J. (eds.) VSTTE 2005. LNCS, vol. 4171, pp. 144–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrett, C., Stump, A., Tinelli, C.: The Satisfiability Modulo Theories Library (SMT-LIB) (2010), http://www.smt-lib.org

  10. Barrett, C., Stump, A., Tinelli, C.: The SMT-LIB Standard: Version 2.0. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Satisfiability Modulo Theories (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: BLAST documentation, http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/blast_doc/ (retrieved July 11, 2011)

  12. Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: The software model checker BLAST. STTT 9(5-6), 505–525 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Beyer, D., Keremoglu, M.E.: cPAchecker: A tool for configurable software verification. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 184–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Biere, A.: Picosat essentials. JSAT 4(2-4), 75–97 (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Strichman, O., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking. In: Advances in Computers (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Brillout, A., Kroening, D., Wahl, T.: Mixed abstractions for floating-point arithmetic. In: FMCAD, pp. 69–76. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Burch, J., Clarke, E., McMillan, K., Dill, D., Hwang, L.J.: Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. In: Information and Computation (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chalin, P., Kiniry, J.R., Leavens, G.T., Poll, E.: Beyond assertions: Advanced specification and verification with JML and ESC/Java2. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 342–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. Journal of the ACM (JACM) (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Clarke, E., Kröning, D., Lerda, F.: A tool for checking ANSI-C programs. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 168–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Clarke, E., Kroening, D., Sharygina, N., Yorav, K.: Predicate abstraction of ANSI-C programs using SAT. Formal Methods in System Design (FMSD), 105–127 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Collingbourne, P., Cadar, C., Kelly, P.H.J.: Symbolic crosschecking of floating-point and SIMD code. In: EuroSys. ACM, New York (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Calcagno, C., Distefano, D., O’Hearn, P., Yang, H.: Compositional shape analysis by means of bi-abduction. In: POPL 2009, pp. 289–300 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Satisfiability: Suggested Format (1993), ftp://dimacs.rutgers.edu/pub/challenge/satisfiability/

  25. Donaldson, A., Haller, L., Kroening, D., Rümmer, P.: Software verification using k-induction. In: Yahav, E. (ed.) SAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6887, pp. 351–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Donaldson, A., Kaiser, A., Kroening, D., Wahl, T.: Symmetry-aware predicate abstraction for shared-variable concurrent programs. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 356–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Donaldson, A.F., Kroening, D., Ruemmer, P.: Automatic analysis of DMA races using model checking and k-induction. Formal Methods in System Design 39(1), 83–113 (2011)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Fraser, K., Harris, T.: Concurrent Programming Without Locks. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 25(2) (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Graf, S., Saïdi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Hinton, A., Kwiatkowska, M.Z., Norman, G., Parker, D.: PRISM: A tool for automatic verification of probabilistic systems. In: Hermanns, H. (ed.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 441–444. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Hoare, C., Misra, J., Leavens, G.T., Shankar, N.: The verified software initiative: A manifesto. ACM Comput. Surv. 41, article 22 (October 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Holzmann, G.: Design and Validation of Computer Protocols. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Holzmann, G.J.: The model checker SPIN. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 23(5), 279–295 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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 

  36. Kurshan, R.P.: Verification technology transfer. In: Grumberg, O., Veith, H. (eds.) 25 Years of Model Checking. LNCS, vol. 5000, pp. 46–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Kwiatkowska, M.Z., Norman, G., Parker, D.: PRISM: Probabilistic symbolic model checker. In: Field, T., Harrison, P.G., Bradley, J., Harder, U. (eds.) TOOLS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2324, pp. 200–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lamport, L.: How to Make a Correct Multiprocess Program Execute Correctly on a Multiprocessor. IEEE Trans. Comput. 46(7), 779–782 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Manolescu, I., Manegold, S.: Performance evaluation and experimental assessment – conscience or curse of database research? In: VLDB, pp. 1441–1442. ACM, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  40. McKenney, P.: http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/

  41. Post, H., Sinz, C., Merz, F., Gorges, T., Kropf, T.: Linking functional requirements and software verification. In: RE, pp. 295–302. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rümmer, P., Wahl, T.: An SMT-LIB theory of binary floating-point arithmetic. In: International Workshop on Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sheeran, M., Singh, S., Stålmarck, G.: Checking safety properties using induction and a SAT-solver. In: Johnson, S.D., Hunt Jr., W.A. (eds.) FMCAD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1954, pp. 108–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Steffen, B.: Major threat: From formal methods without tools to tools without formal methods. In: ICECCS, p. 15. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004), panel discussion

    Google Scholar 

  45. Veldhuizen, T.L.: C++ templates are Turing complete. Tech. rep. (2003), http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.14.3670 (retrieved July 11, 2011)

  46. Wilson, M.L., Mackay, W., Chi, E., Bernstein, M., Russell, D., Thimbleby, H.: RepliCHI – CHI should be replicating and validating results more: discuss. In: CHI Extended Abstracts, pp. 463–466. ACM, New York (2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Jade Alglave, Alastair F. Donaldson, Daniel Kroening & Michael Tautschnig

Authors
  1. Jade Alglave
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alastair F. Donaldson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Kroening
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Tautschnig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

    Tevfik Bultan

  2. Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Chung Cheng University, 168 University Road, Min-Hsiung, 62102, Chiayi, Taiwan, ROC

    Pao-Ann Hsiung

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Alglave, J., Donaldson, A.F., Kroening, D., Tautschnig, M. (2011). Making Software Verification Tools Really Work. In: Bultan, T., Hsiung, PA. (eds) Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis. ATVA 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6996. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24372-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24372-1_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-24371-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-24372-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation