Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Efficient family-based model checking via variability abstractions

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many software systems are variational: they can be configured to meet diverse sets of requirements. They can produce a (potentially huge) number of related systems, known as products or variants, by systematically reusing common parts. For variational models (variational systems or families of related systems), specialized family-based model checking algorithms allow efficient verification of multiple variants, simultaneously, in a single run. These algorithms, implemented in a tool \(\overline{\text {SNIP}}\), scale much better than “the brute force” approach, where all individual systems are verified using a single-system model checker, one-by-one. Nevertheless, their computational cost still greatly depends on the number of features and variants. For variational models with a large number of features and variants, the family-based model checking may be too costly or even infeasible. In this work, we address two key problems of family-based model checking. First, we improve scalability by introducing abstractions that simplify variability. Second, we reduce the burden of maintaining specialized family-based model checkers, by showing how the presented variability abstractions can be used to model check variational models using the standard version of (single-system) SPIN. The variability abstractions are first defined as Galois connections on semantic domains. We then show how to use them for defining abstract family-based model checking, where a variability model is replaced with an abstract version of it, which preserves the satisfaction of LTL properties. Moreover, given an abstraction, we define a syntactic source-to-source transformation on high-level modeling languages that describe variational models, such that the model checking of the transformed high-level variational model coincides with the abstract model checking of the concrete high-level variational model. This allows the use of SPIN with all its accumulated optimizations for efficient verification of variational models without any knowledge about variability. We have implemented the transformations in a prototype tool, and we illustrate the practicality of this method in several case studies.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The project on development of \(\overline{\text {SNIP}}\) model checker (https://projects.info.unamur.be/fts/) is independent of SPIN. \(\overline{\text {SNIP}}\) has been implemented from scratch. We put a line over \(\overline{\text {SNIP}}\) to make the distinction from SPIN clearer.

  2. Alternatively, we could work with the set-theoretic definition of propositional formulae and consider an isomorphic complete lattice of sets of configurations \(( \left[ \! \left[ \,\, FeatExp(\mathbb {F}) \,\,\right] \! \right] ,\subseteq ,\cup ,\cap ,2^{\mathbb {F}},\emptyset )\). Here, \( \left[ \! \left[ \,\, FeatExp(\mathbb {F}) \,\,\right] \! \right] = 2^{2^{\mathbb {F}}}\), and an element of \( \left[ \! \left[ \,\, FeatExp(\mathbb {F}) \,\,\right] \! \right] \) is a subset of \(Eval(\mathbb {F})=2^{\mathbb {F}}\), which corresponds to a propositional formula over \(\mathbb {F} \) which is satisfied by those evaluations.

  3. The \(f\) Promela Reconfigurator tool is available from: https://models-team.github.io/p3-tool/.

References

  1. Apel, S., Batory, D.S., Kästner, C., Saake, G.: Feature-oriented software product lines—concepts and implementation. Springer (2013)

  2. Apel, S., Speidel, H., Wendler, P., von Rhein, A., Beyer, D.: Detection of feature interactions using feature-aware verification. In: 26th IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering (ASE 2011), pp. 372–375 (2011)

  3. Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P.: Principles of model checking. MIT Press (2008)

  4. Belder, T., ter Beek, M.H., de Vink, E.P.: Coherent branching feature bisimulation. In: Proceedings 6th workshop on formal methods and analysis in SPL engineering, FMSPLE 2015, EPTCS, vol. 182, pp.14–30 (2015)

  5. Bodden, E., Tolêdo, T., Ribeiro, M., Brabrand, C., Borba, P., Mezini, M.: Spl\({}^{\text{lift}}\): statically analyzing software product lines in minutes instead of years. In: ACM SIGPLAN Conference on PLDI ’13, pp. 355–364 (2013)

  6. Brabrand, C., Ribeiro, M., Tolêdo, T., Winther, J., Borba, P.: Intraprocedural dataflow analysis for software product lines. Trans. Aspect Oriented Soft. Dev. 10, 73–108 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chen, S., Erwig, M., Walkingshaw, E.: An error-tolerant type system for variational lambda calculus. In: ACM SIGPLAN international conference on functional programming, ICFP’12, pp. 29–40 (2012)

  8. Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Giunchiglia, F., Roveri, M.: NUSMV: a new symbolic model checker. STTT 2(4), 410–425 (2000)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Clarke, Edmund M., Grumberg, Orna, Long, David E.: Model checking and abstraction. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16(5), 1512–1542 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Classen, A., Boucher, Q., Heymans, P.: A text-based approach to feature modelling: syntax and semantics of TVL. Sci. Comput. Program. 76(12), 1130–1143 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Classen, A., Cordy, M., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Schobbens, P.-Y.: model checking software product lines with SNIP. STTT 14(5), 589–612 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Classen, A., Cordy, M., Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Raskin, J.-F.: Featured transition systems: foundations for verifying variability-intensive systems and their application to LTL model checking. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 39(8), 1069–1089 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Classen, A., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.-Y., Legay, A.: Symbolic model checking of software product lines. In: Proceedings of the 33rd international conference on software engineering, ICSE 2011, pp. 321–330 (2011)

  14. Classen, A., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.-Y., Legay, A., Raskin, J.-F.: Model checking lots of systems: efficient verification of temporal properties in software product lines. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE international conference on software engineering—Volume 1, ICSE 2010, pp. 335–344 (2010)

  15. Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software product lines: practices and patterns. Addison-Wesley (2001)

  16. Cordy, M., Classen, A., Perrouin, G., Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., Legay, A.: Simulation-based abstractions for software product-line model checking. In: Proceedings of the 34th international conference on software engineering, ICSE 2012, pp. 672–682 (2012)

  17. Cordy, M., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Schobbens, P.-Y., Dawagne, B., Leucker, M.: Counterexample guided abstraction refinement of product-line behavioural models. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering, (FSE-22), pp. 190–201 (2014)

  18. Cousot, P,: The calculational design of a generic abstract interpreter. In: Broy, M., Steinbrüggen, R. (eds.) Calculational system design. NATO ASI Series F. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999)

  19. Czarnecki, K., Antkiewicz, M.: Mapping features to models: a template approach based on superimposed variants. In: Generative programming and component engineering, 4th Int. Conf., GPCE 2005, LNCS, vol. 3676, pp. 422–437 (2005)

  20. Dams, D., Gerth, R., Grumberg, O.: Abstract interpretation of reactive systems. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 19(2), 253–291 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dimovski, Aleksandar S.: Program verification using symbolic game semantics. Theor. Comput. Sci. 560, 364–379 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Dimovski, A.S.: Symbolic game semantics for model checking program families. In: Model Checking Software—23nd International Symposium, SPIN 2016, Proceedings, LNCS, vol. 9641, pp. 19–37. Springer (2016)

  23. Dimovski, A.S., Al-Sibahi, A.S., Brabrand, C., Wasowski, A.: Family-based model checking without a family-based model checker. In: Model checking software—22nd International Symposium, SPIN 2015, Proceedings, LNCS, vol. 9232, pp. 282–299. Springer (2015)

  24. Dimovski, A.S., Brabrand, C., Wasowski, A.: Variability abstractions: trading precision for speed in family-based analyses. In: 29th European conference on object-oriented programming, ECOOP 2015, LIPIcs, vol. 37, pp. 247–270. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2015)

  25. Dimovski, A.S., Brabrand, C., Wasowski, A.: Variability abstractions: trading precision for speed in family-based analyses (extended version). CoRR, abs/1503.04608 (2015)

  26. Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S.: A behavioural model for product families. In: Proceedings of the 6th joint meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, 2007, pp. 521–524. ACM (2007)

  27. Gallardo, M., Martínez, J., Merino, P., Pimentel, E.: \(\alpha \)spin: a tool for abstract model checking. STTT 5(2–3), 165–184 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gallardo, M., Merino, P., Pimentel, E.: Refinement of LTL formulas for abstract model checking. In: Static analysis, 9th international symposium, SAS 2002, Proceedings, LNCS, vol. 2477, pp. 395–410. Springer (2002)

  29. Gruler, A., Leucker, M., Scheidemann, K.D.: Modeling and model checking software product lines. In: Formal methods for open object-based distributed systems, 10th IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference, FMOODS 2008, Proceedings, LNCS, vol. 5051, pp. 113–131. Springer (2008)

  30. Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker—primer and reference manual. Addison-Wesley (2004)

  31. Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Spencer Peterson, A.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical report, Carnegie-Mellon University Software Engineering Institute (1990)

  32. Kästner, C., Apel, S., Thüm, T., Saake, G.: Type checking annotation-based product lines. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 21(3), 14 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kästner, C., Giarrusso, P.G., Rendel, T., Erdweg, S., Ostermann, K., Berger, T.: Variability-aware parsing in the presence of lexical macros and conditional compilation. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA 2011, part of SPLASH 2011, pp. 805–824 (2011)

  34. Kramer, J., Magee, J., Sloman, M., Lister, A.: Conic: An integrated approach to distributed computer control systems. IEE Proc. 130(1), 1–10 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lauenroth, K., Pohl, K., Toehning, S.: Model checking of domain artifacts in product line engineering. In: ASE 2009, 24th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2009, pp. 269–280. IEEE Computer Society (2009)

  36. Lochau, M., Mennicke, S., Baller, H., Ribbeck, L.: Incremental model checking of delta-oriented software product lines. J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program. 85(1), 245–267 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Loiseaux, C., Graf, S., Sifakis, J., Bouajjani, A., Bensalem, S.: Property preserving abstractions for the verification of concurrent systems. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 6(1), 11–44 (1995)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. McMillan, K.L.: Applications of craig interpolants in model checking. In: Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, 11th International Conference, TACAS 2005, Proceedings, LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 1–12. Springer (2005)

  39. Midtgaard, J., Dimovski, A.S., Brabrand, C., Wasowski, A.: Systematic derivation of correct variability-aware program analyses. Sci. Comput. Program. 105, 145–170 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Plath, M., Ryan, M.: Feature integration using a feature construct. Sci. Comput. Program. 41(1), 53–84 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Post, H., Sinz, C.: Configuration lifting: verification meets software configuration. In: 23rd IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering (ASE 2008), pp. 347–350 (2008)

  42. ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: Using FMC for family-based analysis of software product lines. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on software product line, SPLC 2015, pp. 432–439. ACM (2015)

  43. ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: Modelling and analysing variability in product families: model checking of modal transition systems with variability constraints. J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program. 85(2), 287–315 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Thüm, T., Apel, S., Kästner, C., Schaefer, I., Saake, G.: A classification and survey of analysis strategies for software product lines. ACM Comput. Surv. 47(1), 6 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Thüm, T., Schaefer, I., Hentschel, M., Apel, S.: Family-based deductive verification of software product lines. In: Generative programming and component engineering, GPCE’12, pp. 11–20. ACM (2012)

  46. Thüm, T., Winkelmann, T., Schröter, R., Hentschel, M., Krüger, S.: Variability hiding in contracts for dependent software product lines. In: Proceedings of the tenth international workshop on variability modelling of software-intensive systems, 2016, pp. 97–104. ACM (2016)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Aleksandar S. Dimovski, Ahmad Salim Al-Sibahi, Claus Brabrand & Andrzej Wąsowski

Authors
  1. Aleksandar S. Dimovski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmad Salim Al-Sibahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claus Brabrand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrzej Wąsowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleksandar S. Dimovski.

Additional information

Danish Council for Independent Research, Sapere Aude grant no. 0602-02327B.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dimovski, A.S., Al-Sibahi, A.S., Brabrand, C. et al. Efficient family-based model checking via variability abstractions. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer 19, 585–603 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-016-0425-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-016-0425-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation