Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byBeatrix Griffin Modified over 2 years ago

1
Chair of Software Engineering Software Verification Stephan van Staden Lecture 10: Model Checking

2
2 Overview The big picture Example to be verified Ingredients of a model checking system The state explosion problem Applications of model checking SLAM

3
3 The big picture Application domain: mostly concurrent, reactive systems Verification of particular properties Verify that a system satisfies a property: 1. Model the system in the model checker’s description language. Call this model M 2. Express the property to be verified in the specification language of the model checker. Call this formula ϕ 3. Run the model checker to show that M satisfies ϕ, i.e. M ⊨ ϕ Automatic for finite-state models

4
4 Example 2 processes execute in parallel Each undergoes transitions n → r → c → n → … where n denotes “not in critical section” r denotes “requesting to enter critical section” c denotes “in critical section” Requirements: Safety: Only one process may execute critical section code at any point Liveness: Whenever a process requests to enter its critical section, it will eventually be allowed to do so Non-blocking: A process can always request to enter its critical section

5
5 Example (cont) We write a program P to fulfill these requirements. But is it really doing its job? We construct a model M for P where M captures the relevant behavior of P: n1n2n1n2 r1n2r1n2 r1r2r1r2 r1c2r1c2 c1r2c1r2 n1r2n1r2 n1c2n1c2 c1n2c1n2 s2s2 s5s5 s7s7 s4s4 s1s1 s0s0 s3s3 s6s6

6
6 Example (cont) Based on a definition of when a model satisfies a property, we can determine whether M satisfies P’s required properties Example: M satisfies the safety requirement if no state reachable from s 0 (including s 0 ) is labeled c 1 c 2. Thus our M satisfies P’s safety requirement We can formalize the idea Note: the conclusion that P satisfies these requirements depends on the (unverified) assumption that M is a faithful representation of all the relevant aspects of P

7
7 Ingredients of a model checking system Models, specifications, a satisfaction relation, a satisfaction checking algorithm. Tasks: 1.Define what models are 2.Define what specifications are 3.Define when a model satisfies a specification 4.Devise an efficient algorithm to decide satisfaction

8
8 1. Define what models are Many formalisms, e.g. Kripke models, LTSs, … A transition system M = (S, →, L) is a set of states S with a transition relation → (a binary relation on S), such that every s S has some s’ S with s → s’, and a labeling function L: S → Ρ(Atoms), where Atoms is a set of atomic descriptions. Our example: a transition system with S = {s 0, s 1, s 2, s 3, s 4, s 5, s 6, s 7 } → = {(s 0,s 1 ), (s 0,s 5 ), (s 1,s 2 ), (s 1,s 3 ), (s 4, s 5 ), …} L(s 0 ) = {n 1,n 2 }, L(s 1 ) = {r 1,n 2 }, L(s 3 ) = {r 1,r 2 }, … where Atoms = {n 1, r 1, c 1, n 2, r 2, c 2 } Define a concrete syntax in which models can be described

9
9 2. Define what specifications are They describe properties of models Temporal logics (e.g. LTL, CTL) are often used to specify properties of concurrent, reactive systems. Syntax of LTL formulas: ϕ ::= true | false | p | ( ¬ ϕ ) | ( ϕ ˄ ϕ ) | ( ϕ v ϕ ) | ( ϕ → ϕ ) | (X ϕ ) | (G ϕ ) | (F ϕ ) | ( ϕ U ϕ ) | ( ϕ W ϕ ) | ( ϕ R ϕ ) Example specifications: G ¬ (c 1 ˄ c 2 ), G (r 1 → F c 1 ) and G (r 2 → F c 2 ) Define a concrete syntax for specifications

10
10 3. Define the satisfaction relation For a path π = s 1 → s 2 →... in a model M & LTL formula ϕ : π ⊨ true π ⊨ false π ⊨ p iff p L(s 1 ) π ⊨ ¬ ϕ iff π ⊨ ϕ π ⊨ ϕ 1 ˄ ϕ 2 iff π ⊨ ϕ 1 and π ⊨ ϕ 2 π ⊨ ϕ 1 v ϕ 2 iff π ⊨ ϕ 1 or π ⊨ ϕ 2 π ⊨ ϕ 1 → ϕ 2 iff π ⊨ ϕ 2 whenever π ⊨ ϕ 1 π ⊨ X ϕ iff π 2 ⊨ ϕ (π i = s i → s i+1 →...) π ⊨ G ϕ iff for all i ≥ 1, π i ⊨ ϕ π ⊨ F ϕ iff there is some i ≥ 1 such that π i ⊨ ϕ π ⊨ ϕ 1 U ϕ 2 iff there is some i ≥ 1 such that π i ⊨ ϕ 2 and for all 1 ≤ j < i, π j ⊨ ϕ 1 / / neXt Globally Future Until Weak-until Release

11
11 3. Define the satisfaction relation (cont.) π ⊨ ϕ 1 W ϕ 2 iff either π ⊨ ϕ 1 U ϕ 2 or for all i ≥ 1, π i ⊨ ϕ 1 π ⊨ ϕ 1 R ϕ 2 iff either there is some i ≥ 1 such that π i ⊨ ϕ 1 and for all 1 ≤ j ≤ i we have π j ⊨ ϕ 2, or for all k ≥ 1, π k ⊨ ϕ 2 Suppose M = (S, →, L) is a model, s S and ϕ is an LTL formula. M,s ⊨ ϕ iff for every path π of M starting at s we have π ⊨ ϕ Thus we are able to prove for our example that: M,s 0 ⊨ G ¬ (c 1 ˄ c 2 ) (the safety property holds). M,s 0 ⊨ G (r 1 → F c 1 ) (the liveness property does not hold – a counterexample path is s 0 → s 1 → s 3 → s 7 → s 1 → s 3 → s 7 →...). The non-blocking property is not expressible in LTL. /

12
12 4. Provide a checking algorithm Devise an efficient algorithm to decide M ⊨ ϕ Typically without user interaction Approaches: semantic, automata, tableau, … Provide a counterexample when M ⊨ ϕ. The counterexample provides a clue to what is wrong: The system might be incorrect The model might be too abstract (in need of refinement) The specification might not be the intended one /

13
13 The state explosion problem The number of states grow exponentially with the number of system components For our example: 3 processes execute in parallel, 4 processes, etc. Techniques to make state explosion less severe: Abstraction Induction Partial order reduction …

14
14 Applications Verification of specific properties of: Hardware circuits Communication protocols Control software Embedded systems Device drivers (e.g. SLAM project of Microsoft) … Real-world problems: “10 20 states and beyond” Useful: 2007 Turing Award (Clarke, Emerson and Sifakis) We now turn to SLAM

15
15 SLAM introduction Faulty drivers often responsible for OS crashes Verifying proper driver API usage E.g. a lock is never released without being first acquired Prevent

16
16 SLAM introduction (cont) Input: a C program P (the device driver code) and temporal safety properties expressed as a SLIC specification ϕ Output (if terminates): P ⊨ ϕ or P ⊨ ϕ /

17
17 SLIC property specification A SLIC spec ϕ is a state machine Example: state { enum {Unlocked = 0, Locked = 1} state = Unlocked; } KeAcquireSpinLock.return { if (state==Locked) abort; else state = Locked; } KeReleaseSpinLock.return { if (state==Unlocked) abort; else state = Unlocked; } UnlockedLocked Error Rel Acq Rel

18
18 Translating SLIC spec to C state { enum {Unlocked = 0, Locked = 1} state = Unlocked; } KeAcquireSpinLock.return { if (state==Locked) abort; else state = Locked; } KeReleaseSpinLock.return { if (state==Unlocked) abort; else state = Unlocked; } enum {Unlocked = 0, Locked = 1} state = Unlocked; void slic_abort() { SLIC_ERROR: ; } void KeAcquireSpinLock_return { if (state==Locked) slic_abort(); else state = Locked; } void KeReleaseSpinLock_return { if (state==Unlocked) slic_abort(); else state = Unlocked; }

19
19 The device driver code P do { KeAcquireSpinLock(); nPacketsOld = nPackets; if (request) { request = request->Next; KeReleaseSpinLock(); nPackets++; } } while (nPackets != nPacketsOld); KeReleaseSpinLock();

20
20 The instrumented program P’ Compose P with C version of ϕ to obtain an instrumented P’. If SLIC_ERROR is reachable in P’, then P ⊨ ϕ else P ⊨ ϕ. Example P’: / enum {Unlocked = 0, Locked = 1} state = Unlocked; void slic_abort() { SLIC_ERROR: ; } void KeAcquireSpinLock_return { if (state==Locked) slic_abort(); else state = Locked; } void KeReleaseSpinLock_return { if (state==Unlocked) slic_abort(); else state = Unlocked; } do { KeAcquireSpinLock(); A: KeAcquireSpinLock_return(); nPacketsOld = nPackets; if (request) { request = request->Next; KeReleaseSpinLock(); B: KeReleaseSpinLock_return(); nPackets++; } } while (nPacketsOld != nPackets); KeReleaseSpinLock(); C: KeReleaseSpinLock_return();

21
21 The SLAM verification process Iterative process to determine whether SLIC_ERROR is reachable in P’: prog. P’ prog. P SLIC rule boolean program path predicates slic c2bp bebop newton

22
22 SLAM iteration Let E 0 be the predicates present in the conditionals of ϕ. For iteration i: 1.Apply c2bp to construct the boolean program BP(P’,E i ) 2.Apply bebop to check if there is a path p i in BP(P’,E i ) that reaches SLIC_ERROR. If bebop determines that SLIC_ERROR is not reachable, then ϕ is valid in P and the algorithm terminates 3.If there such a path p i, then newton checks whether p i is feasible in P’. Two possible outcomes: 1. “yes”: ϕ has been invalidated in P and the algorithm terminates with counterexample p i 2. “no”: newton finds a set of predicates F i that explain the infeasibility of p i in P’ 4.Let E i+1 := E i ∪ F i and i := i + 1 and proceed to the next iteration

23
23 Some observations The original satisfaction problem has been translated into a boolean program reachability problem. For every statement s in P’ and every predicate e E i, c2bp determines the effect of s on e to build the boolean program.

24
24 Iteration 0 E 0 = {state = Locked, state = Unlocked} BP(P’,E 0 ): decl {state=Unlocked}, {state=Locked}; {state=Unlocked} := T; {state=Locked} := F; void slic_abort() { SLIC_ERROR: skip; } void KeAcquireSpinLock_return { if ({state=Locked}) slic_abort(); else { {state=Locked} := T; {state=Unlocked} := F; } } void KeReleaseSpinLock_return { if ({state=Unlocked}) slic_abort(); else { {state = Unlocked} := T; {state = Locked} := F; } } do { skip; A: KeAcquireSpinLock_return(); skip; if (*) { skip; B: KeReleaseSpinLock_return(); skip; } } while (*); skip; C: KeReleaseSpinLock_return();

25
25 Iteration 0 (cont) bebop provides path p 0 = A → A → SLIC_ERROR newton determines that p 0 is infeasible in P’ and returns F 0 = {nPacketsOld = nPackets} as explanation – it must be both true and false on p 0 : do { KeAcquireSpinLock(); A: KeAcquireSpinLock_return(); nPacketsOld = nPackets; if (request) { request = request->Next; KeReleaseSpinLock(); B: KeReleaseSpinLock_return(); nPackets++; } } while (nPacketsOld != nPackets); KeReleaseSpinLock(); C: KeReleaseSpinLock_return();

26
26 Iteration 1 E 1 = {state = Locked, state = Unlocked, nPacketsOld = nPackets} BP(P’,E 1 ): decl {state=Unlocked}, {state=Locked}; {state=Unlocked} := T; {state=Locked} := F; void slic_abort() { SLIC_ERROR: skip; } void KeAcquireSpinLock_return { if ({state=Locked}) slic_abort(); else { {state=Locked} := T; {state=Unlocked} := F; } } void KeReleaseSpinLock_return { if ({state=Unlocked}) slic_abort(); else { {state = Unlocked} := T; {state = Locked} := F; } } do { skip; A: KeAcquireSpinLock_return(); b := T; if (*) { skip; B: KeReleaseSpinLock_return(); b := F; } } while (!b); skip; C: KeReleaseSpinLock_return();

27
27 Iteration 1 (cont) bebop establishes that SLIC_ERROR is unreachable in BP(P’,E 1 ) SLAM concludes that P ⊨ ϕ

28
28 Sources Logic in Computer Science – Modelling and Reasoning about Systems, 2 nd edition, Michael Huth & Mark Ryan, Cambridge University Press, 2004. Automatically Validating Temporal Safety Properties of Interfaces, T. Ball & S. K. Rajmani, SPIN 2001 Tutorial on "Software Model Checking with SLAM" at PLDI 2003

Similar presentations

OK

SYMBOLIC MODEL CHECKING: 10 20 STATES AND BEYOND J.R. Burch E.M. Clarke K.L. McMillan D. L. Dill L. J. Hwang Presented by Rehana Begam.

SYMBOLIC MODEL CHECKING: 10 20 STATES AND BEYOND J.R. Burch E.M. Clarke K.L. McMillan D. L. Dill L. J. Hwang Presented by Rehana Begam.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on duty roster designs Ppt on water resources in india Ppt on chromosomes and chromatin are both forms Ppt on precautions of tsunami in japan Ppt on limits and derivatives doc Dynamic scattering liquid crystal display ppt online Ppt on instrument landing system ils Ppt on 21st century skills for teachers Ppt on disaster management act 2005 Ppt on power supply