Technologies for finding errors in object-oriented software K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA Lecture 0 Summer school on Formal Models.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Automatic verification of summations K. Rustan M. Leino IFIP WG 2.3 meeting 46 Sydney, Australia 11 January 2007.
Advertisements

A SAT characterization of boolean-program correctness K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA 14 Nov 2002 IFIP WG 2.4 meeting, Schloβ Dagstuhl,
Hoare-style program verification K. Rustan M. Leino Guest lecturer Rob DeLines CSE 503, Software Engineering University of Washington 26 Apr 2004.
Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants Mike Barnett, Robert DeLine, Manuel Fahndrich, K. Rustan M. Leino, Wolfram Schulte Formal techniques.
Advanced programming tools at Microsoft
Joint work with Mike Barnett, Robert DeLine, Manuel Fahndrich, and Wolfram Schulte Verifying invariants in object-oriented programs K. Rustan M. Leino.
Copyright © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Programming Languages 2nd edition Tucker and Noonan Chapter 18 Program Correctness To treat programming.
Extended Static Checking for Java Cormac Flanagan K. Rustan M. Leino Mark Lillibridge Greg Nelson James B. Saxe Raymie Stata Compaq SRC 18 June 2002 PLDI02,
The Spec# programming system K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA Lunch seminar, Praxis Bath, UK 6 Dec 2005 joint work with Mike Barnett,
Demand-driven inference of loop invariants in a theorem prover
Checking correctness properties of object-oriented programs K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA Lecture 4 EEF summer school on Specification,
Checking correctness properties of object-oriented programs K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA Lecture 3 EEF summer school on Specification,
Object Invariants in Specification and Verification K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA Joint work with: Mike Barnett, Ádám Darvas, Manuel.
Technologies for finding errors in object-oriented software K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA Lecture 2 Summer school on Formal Models.
Checking correctness properties of object-oriented programs K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA Lecture 2 EEF summer school on Specification,
Writing specifications for object-oriented programs K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA 21 Jan 2005 Invited talk, AIOOL 2005 Paris,
1 Towards a Verifying Compiler: The Spec# Approach Wolfram Schulte Microsoft Research Formal Methods 2006 Joint work with Rustan Leino, Mike Barnett, Manuel.
Program Verification Using the Spec# Programming System ETAPS Tutorial K. Rustan M. Leino, Microsoft Research, Redmond Rosemary Monahan, NUIM Maynooth.
Technologies for finding errors in object-oriented software K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA Lecture 3 Summer school on Formal Models.
Technologies for finding errors in object-oriented software K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA Lecture 1 Summer school on Formal Models.
Automated Theorem Proving Lecture 1. Program verification is undecidable! Given program P and specification S, does P satisfy S?
Challenges in increasing tool support for programming K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA 23 Sep 2004 ICTAC Guiyang, Guizhou, PRC joint.
The Spec# programming system K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA Distinguished Lecture Series Max Planck Institute for Software Systems.
Synthesis, Analysis, and Verification Lecture 04c Lectures: Viktor Kuncak VC Generation for Programs with Data Structures “Beyond Integers”
Abstraction of Source Code (from Bandera lectures and talks)
PZ03D Programming Language design and Implementation -4th Edition Copyright©Prentice Hall, PZ03D - Program verification Programming Language Design.
Extended Static Checking for Haskell (ESC/Haskell) Dana N. Xu University of Cambridge advised by Simon Peyton Jones Microsoft Research, Cambridge.
Automated Software Verification with a Permission-Based Logic 20 th June 2014, Zürich Malte Schwerhoff, ETH Zürich.
Rigorous Software Development CSCI-GA Instructor: Thomas Wies Spring 2012 Lecture 11.
K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA 3 December 2008 U. Lugano Lugano, Switzerland.
K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA part 0 International Summer School Marktoberdorf Marktoberdorf,
Formal Methods of Systems Specification Logical Specification of Hard- and Software Prof. Dr. Holger Schlingloff Institut für Informatik der Humboldt.
Extended Static Checking for Java Cormac Flanagan Slides courtesy of Rustan Leino.
Avoiding Exponential Explosion: Generating Compact Verification Conditions Cormac Flanagan and James B. Saxe Compaq Systems Research Center With help from.
Lecture 2 Towards a Verifying Compiler: Logic of Object oriented Programs Wolfram Schulte Microsoft Research Formal Methods 2006 Objects, references, heaps,
ESC Java. Static Analysis Spectrum Power Cost Type checking Data-flow analysis Model checking Program verification AutomatedManual ESC.
Proof-system search ( ` ) Interpretation search ( ² ) Main search strategy DPLL Backtracking Incremental SAT Natural deduction Sequents Resolution Main.
Using and Building an Automatic Program Verifier K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond Lecture 1 LASER.
Hoare-style program verification K. Rustan M. Leino Guest lecturer Rob DeLine’s CSE 503, Software Engineering University of Washington 26 Apr 2004.
K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA part 0 Summer School on Logic and Theorem-Proving in Programming.
ECI 2007: Specification and Verification of Object- Oriented Programs Lecture 1.
Building a program verifier K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA 10 May 2006 Guest lecture, Shaz Qadeer’s cse599f, Formal Verification of.
Houdini: An Annotation Assistant for ESC/Java Cormac Flanagan and K. Rustan M. Leino Compaq Systems Research Center.
ESC Java. Static Analysis Spectrum Power Cost Type checking Data-flow analysis Model checking Program verification AutomatedManual ESC.
Well-cooked Spaghetti: Weakest-Precondition of Unstructured Programs Mike Barnett and Rustan Leino Microsoft Research Redmond, WA, USA.
Chair of Software Engineering Automatic Verification of Computer Programs.
Using and Building an Automatic Program Verifier K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond Lecture 5 LASER.
Using and Building an Automatic Program Verifier K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond Lecture 3 LASER.
Jonathan Kuhn Robin Mange EPFL-SSC Compaq Systems Research Center Flanagan, Leino, Lillibridge, Nelson, Saxe and Stata.
Extended Static Checking for Java or Light-weight formal methods: from objects to components Joint work with Cormac Flanagan, Mark Lillibridge, Greg Nelson,
Software Engineering Prof. Dr. Bertrand Meyer March 2007 – June 2007 Chair of Software Engineering Static program checking and verification Slides: Based.
Extended Static Checking for Java  ESC/Java finds common errors in Java programs: null dereferences, array index bounds errors, type cast errors, race.
Using and Building an Automatic Program Verifier K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond Lecture 3 Marktoberdorf.
Using and Building an Automatic Program Verifier K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond Lecture 0 Marktoberdorf.
COP4020 Programming Languages Introduction to Axiomatic Semantics Prof. Robert van Engelen.
K. Rustan M. Leino Principal Researcher Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA 14 Nov 2007 Øredev Malmö, Sweden.
Extended Static Checking for Java or Light-weight formal methods: from objects to components Joint work with Cormac Flanagan, Mark Lillibridge, Greg Nelson,
Extended Static Checking for Java Cormac Flanagan Joint work with: Rustan Leino, Mark Lillibridge, Greg Nelson, Jim Saxe, and Raymie Stata.
Specifying and verifying programs in Spec# K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA Invited talk, PSI 2006 Novosibirsk, Russia 27 June 2006.
K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA part 2 International Summer School Marktoberdorf Marktoberdorf,
Extended Static Checking for Java Cormac Flanagan Joint work with: Rustan Leino, Mark Lillibridge, Greg Nelson, Jim Saxe, and Raymie Stata Compaq Systems.
Dafny An automatic program verifier for functional correctness
Weakest Precondition of Unstructured Programs
Further with Hoare Logic Sections 6.12, 6.10, 6.13
Program Verification via an Intermediate Verification Language
Hoare-style program verification
Hoare-style program verification
Dafny An automatic program verifier for functional correctness
COP4020 Programming Languages
Presentation transcript:

Technologies for finding errors in object-oriented software K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA Lecture 0 Summer school on Formal Models of Software 1 Sep 2003, Tunis, Tunisia

Motivation

Software development problem Software construction and maintenance are expensive Reliability is costly and difficult to achieve

Vision Increased programmer productivity and program reliability through increased rigor Record design decisions +Utilize automatic checking =Detect errors and improve maintainability

User's view Program with specifications Error messages public class Bag { private int[] a; private int n; invariant 0 <= n && n <= a.length; public int[] initialElements) { n = initialElements.length; a = new int[n]; System.arraycopy(initialElements, 0, a, 0, n); } public void add(int x) { if (n == a.length) { int[] b = new int[2*(a.length+1)]; System.arraycopy(a, 0, b, 0, n); a = b; } a[n] = x; n++; } public int extractMin() { int m = Integer.MAX_VALUE; int mindex = 0; for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) { if (a[i] < m) { mindex = i; m = a[i]; } } if (0 < n) { n--; a[mindex] = a[n]; } return m; } // The program text continues down here, but if youre // reading this, you probably arent paying attention to // the talk. Bag.java:18: Array index possibly too large

Extended Static Checker for Java (ESC/Java) Built at Compaq SRC Input: Java + user-supplied annotations Annotation language captures programmer design decisions Powered by program semantics and automatic theorem proving Performs modular checking

ESC/Java demo

Program checker design tradeoffs Missed errors Spurious warnings Annotation overhead Performance

Tool architecture Translator Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Valid Resource exhausted

Tool architecture, detail Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Tool architecture, detail Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Annotation language Simple – non_null Method annotations – requires E; – modifies w; – ensures E; – exsures (T x) E; Object invariants – invariant E;

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Annotation language Simple – non_null Method annotations – requires E; – modifies w; – ensures E; – exsures (T x) E; Object invariants – invariant E;

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Annotation language Specification expressions – side-effect free Java expressions no ++, no method calls – result, old(E) ensures result == old(x); – ==> – (forall T x; E), (exists T x; E) (forall int j; 0 a[j] > 0); – typeof(E), type(T), <: requires typeof(x) == typeof(this);

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Annotation language Specification expressions – side-effect free Java expressions no ++, no method calls – result, old(E) ensures result == old(x); – ==> – (forall T x; E), (exists T x; E) (forall int j; 0 a[j] > 0); – typeof(E), type(T), <: requires typeof(x) == typeof(this);

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Annotation language Concurrency – monitored_by lock monitored_by this */ long x; – lockset[lock] requires lockset[this]; – lock0 < lock1 – max(lockset) requires max(lockset) < this;

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Annotation language Concurrency – monitored_by lock monitored_by this */ long x; – lockset[lock] requires lockset[this]; – lock0 < lock1 – max(lockset) requires max(lockset) < this;

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Annotation language Ghost variables – ghost public T x; ghost public int objectState; ghost public TYPE elementType; – set x = E; set objectState = Open; set elementType = type(T);

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Annotation language Ghost variables – ghost public T x; ghost public int objectState; ghost public TYPE elementType; – set x = E; set objectState = Open; set elementType = type(T);

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Annotation language Miscellaneous – assert E; – assume E; assume x >= 0; // because x == y*y – nowarn x = a[j]; nowarn – axiom E; axiom (forall int x; x 2 >= 0);

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Sugared commands S,T::=assert E |assume E |x = E |raise |S ; T |S ! T |S [] T |loop {inv E} S T end |call x = t.m(E) |…

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Sugared commands x = t.f.g; assert t null; tmp = select(f, t); assert tmp null; x = select(g, tmp) if (x = 0; */ (assume x < 0; x = -x []assume (x < 0) ); assert x >= 0

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Sugared commands x = t.f.g; assert t null); tmp = select(f, t); assert tmp null); x = select(g, tmp) if (x = 0; */ (assume x < 0; assume lblpos(Then^280:7, true); x = -x []assume (x < 0); assume lblpos(Else^280:7, true) ); assert x >= 0

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Primitive commands S,T::=assert E |assume E |x = E |raise |S ; T |S ! T |S [] T |loop {inv E} S T end |call x = t.m(E) |…

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Primitive commands requires Pre; modifies w; ensures Post; X m(U u); call x = t.m(E) var u in u = E; assert Pre; var w 0 in w 0 = w; havoc w; assume Post; x = result end

|raise |S ; T |S ! T |S [] T Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Passive commands S,T::=assert E |assume E |x = E

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Passive commands if (x = 0; */ (assume x 0 < 0; x 1 = -x 0 ; x 2 = x 1 []assume (x 0 < 0); x 2 = x 0 ); assert x 2 >= 0

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Passive commands if (x = 0; */ (assume x 0 < 0; assume x 1 == -x 0 ; assume x 2 == x 1 []assume (x 0 < 0); assume x 2 == x 0 ); assert x 2 >= 0

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Weakest preconditions A Hoare triple {P} S {Q} says that if command S is started in a state satisfying P, then S terminates without error in a state satisfying Q The weakest precondition of a command S with respect to a postcondition Q, written wp(S, Q), is the weakest P such that {P} S {Q}

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Weakest preconditions wp(assert E, Q) = E && Q wp(assume E, Q) = E ==> Q wp(S;T, Q) = wp(S, wp(T,Q)) wp(S [] T, Q) = wp(S, Q) && wp(T, Q) wp(S, Q) = wp(S, true) && wlp(S, Q) wlp(S, Q) = wlp(S, false) || Q

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Verification condition Universal background predicate – (t t <: t) Type-specific background predicate – Bag <: java.lang.Object Verification condition: BP Univ && BP T ==> VC method

(BG_PUSH (AND (<: T_T |T_java.lang.Object|) (EQ T_T (asChild T_T |T_java.lang.Object|)) (DISTINCT arrayType |T_boolean| |T_char| |T_byte| |T_short| |T_int| |T_long| |T_float| |T_double| |T_.TYPE| T_T |T_java.lang.Object|))) (EXPLIES (LBLNEG |vc.T.abs.2.2| (IMPLIES (AND (EQ elems) (EQ elems (asElems elems)) (< (eClosedTime elems) alloc) (EQ LS (asLockSet LS)) (EQ alloc)) (NOT (AND (EQ (is |x:2.21| T_int)) (OR (AND (OR (AND (< |x:2.21| 0) (LBLPOS |trace.Then^0,3.15| (EQ (EQ |x:3.17| (- 0 |x:2.21|)) (EQ |x:2.21 | |x:3.17|)) (AND (NOT (< |x:2.21| 0)) (LBLPOS |trace.Else^1,3.4| (EQ (EQ |x:2.21 | |x:2.21|))) (NOT (LBLNEG (>= |x:2.21 | 0)))) (AND (OR (AND (< |x:2.21| 0) (LBLPOS |trace.Then^0,3.15| (EQ (EQ |x:3.17| (- 0 |x:2.21|)) (EQ |x:2.21 | |x:3.17|)) (AND (NOT (< |x:2.21| 0)) (LBLPOS |trace.Else^1,3.4| (EQ (EQ |x:2.21 | |x:2.21|))) (LBLNEG (>= |x:2.21 | 0)) (NOT (LBLNEG (EQ |ecReturn| |ecReturn|))))))))) (AND (DISTINCT |ecReturn|))) Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Verification condition class T { static int abs(int x) { if (x < 0) { x = -x; } assert x >= 0; }

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Theorem prover: Simplify Nelson-Oppen cooperating decision procedures – conguence closure – linear arithmetic – partial orders – quantifiers Key features: – automatic: no user interaction – refutation based: searches for counterexamples – heuristics tuned for program checking – labels – time limit

Annotated Java program Verification condition Counterexample context Warning messages Automatic theorem prover Post processor Sugared command Primitive command Passive command Translator Counterexamples and warnings Counterexample: labels: |vc.Bag.add.20.2| |trace.Then^0,21.23|) context: (AND (NEQ |tmp1!a:23.23| null) (NEQ this null) (EQ alloc) (EQ |tmp4!n:26.6| 0) … (<= alloc (vAllocTime |tmp3!a:26.4|)) ) Bag: add(int) Bag.java:26: Warning: Array index possibly too large (IndexTooBig) a[n] = x; ^ Execution trace information: Executed then branch in "Bag.java", line 21, col

Experience: annotations Capture common design decisions Suggested immediately by warnings Overhead: 4-10% of source code 1 annotation per field or parameter Most common annotations: – non_null – container element types

Experience: performance 50% of all methods:< 0.5 s 80% of all methods:< 1 s time limit:300 s total time for Javafe (40kloc): 65 min.

Related work ESC/Modula-3 Full functional specification and verification – JML, LOOP, B, Penelope,... Languages and language features – Euclid, Eiffel, Escher, Guava, Vault, Cqual,... – LCLint, refinement types, Types against races,... Other checking techniques – Abstract interpretation, PREfix, SLAM, Bandera, Java PathFinder 2, Canvas, ESP, AST Toolkit, Metal, …

Conclusions Using program semantics and automatic decision procedures for program analysis works! Cost effective?

What's needed? Semantics of programming language Specification language Programming methodology and disciplines Decision procedures Property inference Download ESC/Java (tool, documentation, sources):