Abstract
To enable scalability and address the needs of real-world software, deductive verification relies on modularization of the target program and decomposition of its requirement specification. In this paper, we present an approach that, given a Java program and a partial requirement specification written using the Java Modeling Language, constructs a semantic slice. In the slice, the parts of the program irrelevant w.r.t. the partial requirements are replaced by an abstraction. The core idea of our approach is to use bounded program verification techniques to guide the construction of these slices. Our approach not only lessens the burden of writing auxiliary specifications (such as loop invariants) but also reduces the number of proof steps needed for verification.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The requires clause specifies the method’s precondition.
- 2.
Different engineers may write different auxiliary specifications for the same programs. We have asked an experienced KeY engineer to prove the original programs and a relatively inexperienced KeY user to prove the abstract programs. They carefully inspected and ensured that the annotations are compact enough w.r.t. the requirement specifications.
- 3.
The complete experiments can be found at http://asa.iti.kit.edu/458.php.
- 4.
The injected guard statements are treated as original statements when handling runtime exceptions.
- 5.
The time cost and memory consumption grow exponentially w.r.t. the rule applications. It required \(\sim \)30 min and more than 4 GB memory for 2000000 rules.
- 6.
The trivial pre-/post-conditions of each abstract statement requires \(\sim \)20–100 rules.
References
Ahrendt, W., et al.: The KeY platform for verification and analysis of Java programs. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Kroening, D. (eds.) VSTTE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8471, pp. 55–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12154-3_4
Ball, T., Cook, B., Levin, V., Rajamani, S.K.: SLAM and static driver verifier: technology transfer of formal methods inside Microsoft. In: Boiten, E.A., Derrick, J., Smith, G. (eds.) IFM 2004. LNCS, vol. 2999, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24756-2_1
Barrett, C., Fontaine, P., Tinelli, C.: The SMT-LIB standard: Version 2.5. Technical report, The University of Iowa (2015)
Barros, J.B., da Cruz, C.D., Henriques, P.R., Pinto, J.S.: Assertion-based slicing and slice graphs. Formal Asp. Comput. 24(2), 217–248 (2012)
Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: The software model checker Blast. STTT 9(5–6), 505–525 (2007)
Bormer, T.: Advancing Deductive Program-Level Verification for Real-World Application: Lessons Learned from an Industrial Case Study. Ph.D. thesis, KIT (2014)
Chaki, S., Clarke, E.M., Groce, A., Jha, S., Veith, H.: Modular verification of software components in C. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(6), 388–402 (2004)
Chebaro, O., Kosmatov, N., Giorgetti, A., Julliand, J.: Program slicing enhances a verification technique combining static and dynamic analysis. In: SAC, pp. 1284–1291. ACM (2012)
Chung, I.S.: Program slicing based on specification. In: SAC, pp. 605–609. ACM (2001)
Clarke, E., Kroening, D., Sharygina, N., Yorav, K.: SATABS: SAT-based predicate abstraction for ANSI-C. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 570–574. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-31980-1_40
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). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03359-9_2
Comuzzi, J.J., Hart, J.M.: Program slicing using weakest preconditions. In: Gaudel, M.-C., Woodcock, J. (eds.) FME 1996. LNCS, vol. 1051, pp. 557–575. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). doi:10.1007/3-540-60973-3_107
da Cruz, D.C., Henriques, P.R., Pinto, J.S.: GamaSlicer: an online laboratory for program verification and analysis. In: LDTA. ACM (2010)
Dennis, G.D.: A Relational Framework for Bounded Program Verification. Ph.D. thesis, MIT (2009)
Donaldson, A.F., 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). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23702-7_26
Ghazi, A.A., Ulbrich, M., Gladisch, C., Tyszberowicz, S., Taghdiri, M.: JKelloy: a proof assistant for relational specifications of Java programs. In: Badger, J.M., Rozier, K.Y. (eds.) NFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8430, pp. 173–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06200-6_13
Fox, C., Danicic, S., Harman, M., Hierons, R.M.: ConSIT: a fully automated conditioned program slicer. Softw. Pract. Experience 34(1), 15–46 (2004)
Gupta, A., Popeea, C., Rybalchenko, A.: Predicate abstraction and refinement for verifying multi-threaded programs. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 46(1), 331–344 (2011)
Gupta, A., Rybalchenko, A.: InvGen: an efficient invariant generator. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 634–640. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02658-4_48
Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)
King, J.C.: Symbolic execution and program testing. CACM 19(7), 385–394 (1976)
Leavens, G.T., Baker, A.L., Ruby, C.: Preliminary design of JML: a behavioral interface specification language for Java. ACM SIGSOFT SEN 31(3), 1–38 (2006)
Liu, T., Nagel, M., Taghdiri, M.: Bounded program verification using an SMT solver: a case study. In: ICST, pp. 101–110. IEEE (2012)
Merz, F., Falke, S., Sinz, C.: LLBMC: bounded model checking of C and C++ programs using a compiler IR. In: Joshi, R., Müller, P., Podelski, A. (eds.) VSTTE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7152, pp. 146–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27705-4_12
Moura, L., 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). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24
Taghdiri, M., Jackson, D.: Inferring specifications to detect errors in code. Autom. Softw. Eng. 14(1), 87–121 (2007)
Vaziri, M.: Finding Bugs in Software with a Constraint Solver. Ph.D. thesis, MIT (2004)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Liu, T., Tyszberowicz, S., Herda, M., Beckert, B., Grahl, D., Taghdiri, M. (2016). Computing Specification-Sensitive Abstractions for Program Verification. In: Fränzle, M., Kapur, D., Zhan, N. (eds) Dependable Software Engineering: Theories, Tools, and Applications. SETTA 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9984. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47677-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47677-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47676-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47677-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)