Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byRoy Biddulph Modified about 1 year ago

1
Abstraction for Falsification Thomas Ball Orna Kupferman Greta Yorsh Microsoft Research, Redmond, US Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel Tel Aviv University, Israel CAV’05

2
Abstraction for Verification Goal: prove properties Sound abstraction for verification –properties of abstract system hold for corresponding concrete system – : C A –if abstract state a satisfies property P then all concrete states represented by a satisfy P

3
Abstraction for Verification Goal: prove properties Sound abstraction for verification –properties of abstract system hold for corresponding concrete system – : C A – a A if a P then c C. (c)=a c P

4
Abstraction for Verification Goal: prove properties Sound abstraction for verification –properties of abstract system hold for corresponding concrete system – : C A – a A if a P then c C. (c)=a c P Falsification detect errors

5
Abstraction for Verification Goal: prove properties Sound abstraction for verification –errors of the abstract system exist in corresponding concrete system – : C A – a A if a P then c C. (c)=a c P Falsification falsification detect errors

6
Abstraction for Verification Goal: prove properties Sound abstraction for verification –errors of the abstract system exist in corresponding concrete system – : C A – a A if a P then c C. (c)=a c P Falsification falsification detect errors c C. (c)=a c P

7
Motivation An abstraction that is sound for falsification need not be sound for verification. Existing frameworks for abstraction for verification –Modal Transition System (MTS) –MTS, PKS,KMTS - equivalent in expressive power [ Godefroid,Jagadessan – VMCAI’03 ] –can be too restrictive for falsification

8
Main Results New framework for abstraction –Ternary Modal Transition System (TMTS) –TMTS is stronger than MTS –Semantics of -calculus for TMTS Weak reachability –TMTS with parameterized transitions gives tighter underapproximation –TMTS with assume-guarantee transitions for complete reasoning

9
may Modal Transition Systems underapproximation overapproximation Concrete Abstract a a’ total a a’ must c. (c) = a c’. (c’) = a’ c c’ MAY(a,a’)MUST+(a,a’) MUST–(a,a’) c, c’. c c’ (c) = a (c’) = a’ (existential abstraction) must may underapproximation c’. (c’) = a’ c. (c) = a c c’ onto a a’ must [ T. Ball - FMCO’04 ] must may must+ and must– are incomparable

10
TMTS strictly more expressive than MTS MTS may and must+ transitions precision preorder is logically characterized by PML ::= p | AX | | TMTS may, must+ and must– transitions precision preorder is logically characterized by full-PML ::= p | AX | AY | | full-PML is strictly more expressive than PML [Pinter,Wolper - PODC’84] [Kupferman,Pnueli - LICS’95]

11
full-PML is strictly more expressive than PML pp p pp p p K1K2 unwind = EX( (EYp) (EY p) ) K1 K2 PML is insensitive to unwinding no PML formula can distinguish between K1 and K2

12
TMTS: what does it buy us? Verifying specifications with past operators Reasoning about specifications in falsification setting –must+ for verification and must- for falsification Tighter weak reachability in abstract system –combine must+ and must- along the path

13
Semantics of -calculus for TMTS : C A (C, c 1 ) [ (A, a 1 ) ] - the value of the -calculus formula in state a 1 of TMTS A

14
[ (A, a) ] = T –for all concrete state c with (c) = a, (C, c) [ (A, a) ] = T –there exists a concrete state c with (c) = a and (C, c) [ (A, a) ] = F –for all concrete state c with (c) = a, (C, c) [ (A, a) ] = F –there exists a concrete state c with (c) = a and (C, c) [ (A, a) ] = M –there exist concrete states c and c’ such that (c) = (c’) = a and (C, c) and (C, c’) [ (A, a) ] = Semantics of -calculus for TMTS

15
Information Lattice TF Truth Lattice T F

16
Information Lattice TF Truth Lattice T T FF M T F FF TT M

17
[(A,a) ] = ?[ C ] -1 (a) = {c1,c2,c3} {c1,c2,c3} {c1,c2}{c2,c3}{c1,c3} {c1}{c2}{c3} { } CL T = [3,0] F = [0,3] = [?,?] F = [?,(>0)] T = [ (>0),?] M = [(>0),(>0)] AL Abstraction function : P(CL) AL Concretization function : AL P(CL) (T) = { {c1,c2,c3} } (T ) = { {c1}, {c2}, {c3}, {c1,c2},{c2,c3},{c1,c3}, {c1,c2,c3} } (M) = { {c1}, {c2}, {c3}, {c1,c2},{c2,c3},{c1,c3} } (F ) = { {}, {c1}, {c2}, {c3}, {c1,c2},{c2,c3},{c1,c3} } (F) = { {} }

18
Truth Lattice [(A,a) ] = ?[ C ] -1 (a) = {c1,c2,c3} {c1,c2,c3} {c1,c2}{c2,c3}{c1,c3} {c1}{c2}{c3} { } CL T = [3,0] F = [0,3] = [?,?] F = [?,(>0)] T = [ (>0),?] M = [(>0),(>0)] AL Abstraction function : P(CL) AL Concretization function : AL P(CL) Order in the abstract lattice (induced by the concrete order and ) : v1, v2 AL v1 v2 (v1) (v2) Order in the concrete powerset lattice (Hoare order with set inclusion) : D1, D2 P(CL). D1 D2 d1 D1. d2 D2. d1 d2

19
Truth Lattice Abstraction function : P(CL) AL ( { d1,..., dk } ) = { (d1),..., (dk) } : CL AL (d) = [ ( |d| ), ( | -1 (a)| - |d| ) ] { T, F, M } (n) { n = 0, n = | -1 (a)|, 0 < n < | -1 (a)| } – (n) = n if n = 0 or n= | -1 (a)| – (n) = (>0)otherwise Join operator [ t1, f1 ] [ t2, f2] = [ (t1 == t2) ? t1 : ?, (f1 == f2) ? f1 : ? ]

20
Semantics of 1 2 Semantics of conjunction in the concrete powerset lattice – D1, D2 P(CL). D1 D2 = D1 D2 –D1 D2 = { d1 d2 | d1 D1 d2 D2 } Semantics of conjunction in the abstract lattice is conservative – v1, v2 AL. ( (v1) (v1) ) v1 # v2

21
Semantics of -calculus for TMTS [ (A, a) 1 2 ] [ (A, a) EX ] [ (A, a) ]

22
[ (A, a) 1 2 ] = [ (A, a) 1 ] # [ (A, a) 2 ] 6-valued Semantics of 1 2

23
## FFF MTT T FFFFFFF FF FFF FF FF FF FF MFFF ?FF MFF TT FFF FF ?TT TFFF M?T FFF FF

24
## FFF MTT T FFFFFFF FF FFF FF FF FF FF MFFF ?FF MFF TT FFF FF ?TT TFFF MTT T FFF FF

25
c2c2 a 1 = T c1c1 1 2 = ? 2 = T 11 22 22 11 6-valued Semantics of 1 2 Example

26
## FFF MTT T FFFFFFF FF FFF FF FF FF FF MFFF ?FF MFF TT FFF FF TT TFFF MTT T FFF FF 6-valued Semantics of 1 2

27
Information Lattice TF Truth Lattice T T FF M T F FF TT M

28
## FFF MTT T FFFFFFF FF FFF FF FF FF FF MFFF ?FF MFF TT FFF FF TT TFFF MTT T FFF FF 6-valued Semantics of 1 2

29
## FFF MTT T FFFFFFF FF FFF FF FF FF FF MFFF FF FF MFF TT FFF FF TT TFFF MTT T FFF FF

30
[ (A, a) EX ] = Semantics of EX F if for all a’, if may(a,a’) then [(A, a’) ] = F T if exists a’ s.t. must+(a,a’) and [(A,a’) ] = T T if exists a’ s.t. must–(a,a’) and [(A,a’) ] T otherwise

31
c’ a EX = T a’ must– = T c [ (A, a) EX ] = T exists a’ s.t. must–(a,a’) and [(A,a’) ] = T exists c’ such that (c’)=a’ and c’ for all c’ with (c’)=a’ there is c with (c)=a such that c c’ if [ (A, a) EX ] = T then there exists c with (c) = a and c EX EX

32
Semantics of The semantics of PML operators is monotonic –Least fixpoint operator can be computed by iterations from F is the usual way: –[(A,a) Z. (Z) ] = [ (A, a) *(F) ]

33
The 6-valued semantics is at least as precise as the standard 3-valued semantics of -calculus for MTS [(A,a) ] = –3-valued abstraction refinement of must+ transitions [Shoham,Grumberg – CAV’03] adapt for must- Hypermust transitions –[Larsen,Xinxin-LICS‘90] [Shoham,Grumberg – CAV’04] –adapt for must– –MTS with hypermust+ is incomparable with TMTS EX(x>6) T EX(x>6) F EX(x>6) = T Semantics of -calculus for TMTS EX(x>6) = ? must – x = 7x = 10 may x > 6 x:=x–3 789

34
Semantics of -calculus for TMTS The 6-valued semantics is at least as precise as the standard 3-valued semantics of -calculus for MTS [(A,a) ] = –3-valued abstraction refinement of must+ transitions [Shoham,Grumberg – CAV’03] adapt for must- Hypermust transitions –[Larsen,Xinxin-LICS‘90] [Shoham,Grumberg – CAV’04] –adapt for must– –MTS with hypermust+ is incomparable with TMTS

35
Weak Reachability a’ is weakly-reachable from a c, c’. (c)=a (c’)=a’ c * c’ c c’ a’ a initial state error state error trace Related to testing

36
L1: TF L0: FTL0: FF L2: TFL3: FTL2: FF L4: FTL4: FF L4: TF x<6x>7 (x=6) (x=7) may must– L0: if x<6 then L1: x:= x + 3 L2: if x > 7 then L3: x :=x – 3 L4: Predicates: (x 7) Example

37
L1: TF L0: FTL0: FF L2: TFL3: FTL2: FF L4: FTL4: FF L4: TF x<6x>7 (x=6) (x=7) may must– L0: if x<6 then L1: x:= x + 3 L2: if x > 7 then L3: x :=x – 3 L4: Predicates: (x 7) Example x = 5

38
Underapproximation of Weak Reachability if [must+]*(a,a’) then a’ is weakly reachable from a Arbitrary combinations of must+ and must– transitions do not preserve weak reachability Find a tighter underapproximation of weak-reachability

39
L1: TF L0: FTL0: FF L2: TFL3: FTL2: FF L4: FTL4: FF L4: TF x<6x>7 (x=6) (x=7) may must– L0: if x<6 then L1: x:= x + 3 L2: if x > 7 then L3: x :=x – 3 L4: Predicates: (x 7) Example must – ? must + ? x = 9 x = 6 x = 5 x = 2

40
Underapproximation of Weak Reachability if [must+]*(a,a’) then a’ is weakly reachable from a Arbitrary combinations of must+ and must– transitions do not preserve weak reachability Find a tighter underapproximation of weak-reachability

41
Observations a 3 is weakly reachable from a 1 if there exists a 2 such that must–(a 1,a 2 ) and must+(a 2,a 3 ) Onto nature of must– is preserved by [must-]* Total nature of must+ is preserved by [must+]* a3a3 must+ a1a1 a2a2 must– [T.Ball – FMCO’04]

42
Underapproximation If there exists a 1, a 2, a 3 such that [must–]*(a 1,a 2 ) and [must+]*(a 2,a 3 ) then a 3 is weakly-reachable from a 1 a3a3 [must+]* a1a1 a2a2 [must–]* [T.Ball – FMCO’04]

43
L1: TF L0: FTL0: FF L2: TFL3: FTL2: FF L4: FTL4: FF L4: TF x<6x>7 (x=6) (x=7) may must– L0: if x<6 then L1: x:= x + 3 L2: if x > 7 then L3: x :=x – 3 L4: Predicates: (x 7) Example

44
a a’ ( total from a? ) MUST+ ? ( onto a’ ?) MUST– ? NO NO MAY Parameterized Transitions

45
a a’ must+( ) total from c. (c) = a c c’. (c’) = a’ c c’ MUST+( ) Parameterized Transitions a a’ must–( ) MUST–( ) c’. (c’) = a’ c’ c. (c) = a c c’ onto if is TRUE then must+( ) is must+ and must–( ) is must–

46
Observation a 3 is weakly reachable from a 1 if there exists a 2 such that –must–( 1 )(a 1,a 2 ) – must+( 2 ) (a 2,a 3 ) – 1 2 a 2 is satisfiable a3a3 must+( 2 ) a1a1 a2a2 must–( 1 ) 11 22

47
Observation a 3 is weakly reachable from a 1 if there exists a 2 such that –must–( 1 )(a 1,a 2 ) – must+( 2 ) (a 2,a 3 ) – 1 2 a 2 is satisfiable Strongest parameters 1 and 2 a3a3 a1a1 a2a2 must–( 1 ) 11 22 must+( 2 )

48
a a’ s MUST+ ( WP(s,a’) ) Strongest Parameters Generated automatically as part of the construction of TMTS c. (c) = a c c’. (c’) = a’ c c’ if must+( ) then a ( WP(s,a’)) a a’ s MUST– ( SP (s,a) ) c’. (c’) = a’ c’ c. (c) = a c c’ if must–( ) then a ( SP(s,a))

49
L1: TF L0: FTL0: FF L2: TFL3: FTL2: FF L4: FTL4: FF L4: TF x<6x>7 (x=6) (x=7) may must– L0: if x<6 then L1: x:= x + 3 L2: if x > 7 then L3: x :=x – 3 L4: Predicates: (x 7) Example SP(x:=x+3, x<6) = x < 9 WP(x:=x-3, x<6) = x < 9

50
L1: TF L0: FTL0: FF L2: TFL3: FTL2: FF L4: FTL4: FF L4: TF x<6x>7 (x=6) (x=7) must– L0: if x<6 then L1: x:= x + 3 L2: if x > 7 then L3: x :=x – 3 L4: Predicates: (x 7) Example SP(x:=x+3, x<6) = x < 9 WP(x:=x-3, x<6) = x < 9 must–(x<9) must+(x<9) must– (x < 9) must+ (x < 9)

51
Tighter Underapproximation If there exists a 1,...,a 5 s.t. [must–]*(a 1,a 2 ) must–( 1 )(a 2,a 3 ) must+( 2 ) (a 3,a 4 ) [must+]*(a 4,a 5 ) 1 2 a 3 is satisfiable then a 5 is weakly-reachable from a 1 a4a4 a2a2 a3a3 11 22 a5a5 a1a1 must+( 2 ) must–( 1 ) [must+]* [must–]*

52
Complete Reasoning –a’ is reachable by a certain sequence of abstract transitions from a –a’ is weakly-reachable from a Assume-guarantee transitions –another type of parameterized transitions: must+

53
a a’ must+ c. (c) = a c c’. (c’) = a’ c’ ’ c c’ MUST+ MUST+ Assume-Guarantee Transitions ’’ Which and ’ predicates do we need? ’’ a a’ c’. (c’) = a’ c’ ’ c. (c) = a c c c’ MUST– MUST– must–

54
The idea... 33 33 3 3 is satisfiable a4a4 a2a2 a3a3 a5a5 a1a1 s1s1 s2s2 s3s3 s4s4 must– 1 = a 1 2 = SP(s 1, 1 ) a 2 3 = SP(s 2, 2 ) a 3 must+ 3 = WP(s 3, 4 ) a 3 4 = WP(s 4, 5 ) a 4 5 = a 5

55
Assume-guarantee transitions Complete Reasoning about Weak Reachability –a’ is reachable by a certain sequence of assume-guarantee transitions from a –a’ is weakly-reachable from a Finding right parameters ~ computing loop invariants

56
Weak Reachability: Summary [must–] *[must+]*must–( 1 )must+( 2 ) [must–] *[must+]* Previous work [T.Ball – FMCO’04]: Parameterized transitions Assume-guarantee transitions –complete reasoning

57
Applications Falsification of properties in CTL, LTL Abstraction-guided test generation –tighter underapproximation of weakly- reachable states improves coverage of the generated tests –example of QuickSort’s partition function

58
Predicate-Complete Testing (PCT) [T. Ball, FMCO’04] Abstract system defined by predicate abstraction Coverage: abstract state a is covered when test execution reaches some concrete state represented by a Coverage criteria ?

59
[T. Ball, FMCO’04] Abstract system defined by predicate abstraction Coverage criterion: |L| / |U| all possible states Predicate-Complete Testing (PCT) Upper bound U [may]* Reachable states Lower bound L initial states weakly-reachable states

60
Predicate-Complete Testing (PCT) [T. Ball, FMCO’04] Abstract system defined by predicate abstraction Coverage criterion: |L| / |U| Abstraction-guided test-generation strategy Tighter underapproximation of weakly-reachable states improves coverage of the generated tests

61 Example: QuickSort’s Partition Function void partition(int a[], int n) { assume(n>2); int p := a[0]; int lo := 1; int hi := n-1; L0: while (lo <= hi) { L2: while (a[lo] <= p) { L3: lo := lo + 1; } L5: while (a[hi] > p) { L6: hi := hi – 1; } if (lo < hi) { L9: swap(a,lo,hi); } LC: ; } L6:TTFT L6:FFFT LC:FFFF L3:TTTFL3:TTTT L3:FTTF L9:TTFF L3:FFTFL6:FTFT Predicates: (lo p) 1 = SP( lo:=lo+1,TTTF ) 2 = WP( lo:=lo+1, FFTF) 1 2 “FTTF” = (lo=hi) (a[lo] p) (a[lo-1]

62
Example: QuickSort’s Partition Function void partition(int a[], int n) { assume(n>2); int p := a[0]; int lo := 1; int hi := n-1; L0: while (lo <= hi) { L2: while (a[lo] <= p) { L3: lo := lo + 1; } L5: while (a[hi] > p) { L6: hi := hi – 1; } if (lo < hi) { L9: swap(a,lo,hi); } LC: ; } L6:TTFT L6:FFFT LC:FFFF L3:TTTFL3:TTTT L3:FTTF L9:TTFF L3:FFTFL6:FTFT ( lo <= hi ) must–( 1 ) must+( 2 ) 532 lo p = 5 hi BOF! ! Predicates: (lo p)

63
Example: QuickSort’s Partition Function void partition(int a[], int n) { assume(n>2); int p := a[0]; int lo := 1; int hi := n-1; L0: while (lo <= hi) { L2: while (a[lo] <= p) { L3: lo := lo + 1; } L5: while (a[hi] > p) { L6: hi := hi – 1; } if (lo < hi) { L9: swap(a,lo,hi); } LC: ; } L6:TTFT L6:FFFT LC:FFFF L3:TTTFL3:TTTT L3:FTTF L9:TTFF L3:FFTFL6:FTFT Predicates: (lo p) 3 = SP( lo:=lo+1,TTTT ) 4 = WP( hi:=hi-1, FFFT) 3 4 “FTFT” is unsatisfiable must–( 3 ) must+( 4 ) The path is infeasible ! must–( 3 ) is must– must+( 4 ) is must+

64
Summary Ternary Modal Transition System (TMTS) –onto and total must transitions –full-PML logical characterizes precision preorder on TMTS 6-valued semantics of -calculus for TMTS Tighten underapproximation of weak reachability with parameterized transitions –completeness result using assume-guarantee transitions

Similar presentations

© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google