Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1
Embedded Systems Laboratory Department of Computer and Information Science Linköping University Sweden Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop

2
-2- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 2 of 20 11 Oct 2001 System Validation n System Validation Techniques o Simulation o Testing o Formal Verification o Model Checking

3
-3- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 3 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Simulation n Based on executable model of the system n permits a quick and shallow evaluation of the design quality n not suitable for finding subtle errors

4
-4- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 4 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Testing n based on the real implementation of the system not on a model n it is the only way of (partially) validating a design when: o the construction of a valid and reliable model of the system is difficult (due to complexity) o system parts cannot be formally modelled o the model is proprietary

5
-5- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 5 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Formal Verification Formal Verification requires: n A model of the system n A specification method n A set of proof rules

6
-6- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 6 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Formal Verification (cont’d) n Verification of sequential programs pre- and post-conditions: {} S {} (Hoare’s triple) {} S {} is partially correct if any terminating computation S that starts in a state satisfying ,terminates in a state satisfying {} S {} is totally correct if any computation S that starts in a state satisfying ,terminates and finishes in a state satisfying

7
-7- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 7 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Formal Verification (cont’d)

8
-8- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 8 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Formal Verification (cont’d) n Formal verification of parallel systems introduces non-determinsm problems n Tools in formal verification o Proof assistants o Proof checkers o Theorem provers

9
-9- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 9 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Model Checking n Automated technique n Verifies whether the required properties hold for a model

10
-10- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 10 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Model Checking (cont’d) n Typical algorithm: exhaustive state-space search n Approaches (depending on requirement specificaton) o Heterogeneous (logic based) o Homogeneous (behavior based) n Bisimulation (A and B are bisimilar if A can simulate every step of B and vice-versa) n Two bisimilar models satisfy the same CTL formulas

11
-11- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 11 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Computational Tree Logic (CTL) n Specification language for finite–state systems n Each formula describes properties of computation paths (which are infinite sequences of states) n Logical operators: NOT, AND n Operators for temporal relationships: X (next- state), G(global), U(until), F(future) n Path quantifiers: E, A

12
-12- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 12 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Computational Tree Logic (cont’d) Descriptions n Xf holds for a path p iff it holds for succ(first(p)) n Gf =>f holds in all states of a computational path n Ff => f will hold sometime in the future n fUg holds for p if there exists a state s on p where g holds while f holds in all states preceding s n AXf holds in a state if f holds in all possible next states

13
-13- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 13 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Binary Decision Diagrams (BDD) n Rooted, acyclic graphs representing boolean functions n Capture some of the regularities in the state- space n Total ordering on variables is needed n Support AND, OR, NOT and functional composition

14
-14- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 14 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Model Checking with BDDs and CTL f V gBDD(f) V BDD(g) NOT fNOT BDD(f) BDD(EX, f, R)(v i ) v f [R(v i, v f ) BDD(f,R)(v f )] E[f U g] z = g V [f EXz] EGf z = f EXz

15
-15- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 15 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Fairness n Fairness constraint = an arbitrary formula of the logic n A path is fair with respect to a set of fairness constraints if each constraint holds infinitely often along the path n CTL F – enhanced for dealing with fair paths n Ex. o Fair = EG true o EX f EX(f Fair) o EG f with B Z = f EX(E[Z U (Z B)])

16
-16- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 16 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Model Checking for RTS n Extend both the state-transition graph and the logical formulas, with quantitative timing information o TCTL (Timed CTL) – expresses desired behavior o Timed graphs – express possible behavior

17
-17- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 17 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Timed CTL n E f U ~c g n A f U ~c g n ~{, , , , } n E f U c g – for some computational path p there is an initial prefix of time less than c such that g holds at the last state and f holds in all intermediate states n ! No X operator for time in real domain R, as there is no unique next-state/next-time

18
-18- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 18 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Timed graphs n Model finite-state RT systems n Composed of o Finite set of nodes o Finite set of clocks

19
-19- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 19 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Model Checking for RTS (cont’d) n The problem consists of deciding whether a finite- state RTS modelled as a timed graph meets its specification given as a TCTL-formula System model: G = (S, , s 0, E, C, , ) TCTL-structure: M G = (S x (G), ’, f) For a TCTL-formula f, G satisfies f iff ( M G,,(s 0, 0 )) satisfies f, where 0 (x) = 0, x C

20
-20- Formal Verification and Model Checking Traian Pop 20 of 20 11 Oct 2001 Model Checking - Conclusions n Advantages o General approach o Supports partial verification o Relatively easy to use (as compared to theorem provers) o Can provide a significant increase in the level of confidence of a system n Disadvantages o Appropriate mainly to control intensive applications o Verifies the model, not the system o Only stated requirements are checked o State-space explosion problem -> complexity issues

Similar presentations

© 2019 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google