Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Automatic verification of Java programs with dynamic frames

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Formal Aspects of Computing

Abstract

Framing in the presence of data abstraction is a challenging and important problem in the verification of object-oriented programs Leavens et al. (Formal Aspects Comput (FACS) 19:159–189, 2007). The dynamic frames approach is a promising solution to this problem. However, the approach is formalized in the context of an idealized logical framework. In particular, it is not clear the solution is suitable for use within a program verifier for a Java-like language based on verification condition generation and automated, first-order theorem proving. In this paper, we demonstrate that the dynamic frames approach can be integrated into an automatic verifier based on verification condition generation and automated theorem proving. The approach has been proven sound and has been implemented in a verifier prototype. The prototype has been used to prove correctness of several programming patterns considered challenging in related work.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Banerjee A, Barnett M, Naumann DA (2008) Boogie meets regions: a verification experience report. In: VSTTE

  2. Berdine J, Calcagno C, O’Hearn PW (2005) Symbolic execution with separation logic. In: APLAS

  3. Barnett M, DeLine R, Fahndrich M, Leino KRM, Schulte W (2004) Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants. J Obj Technol 3(6): 27–56

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barnett M, Leino KRM, Schulte W (2004) The Spec# programming system: an overview. In CASSIS

  5. Borgida A, Mylopoulos J, Reiter R (1995) On the frame problem in procedure specifications. IEEE Trans Softw Eng (TSE), 21(10): 785–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barnett M, Naumann DA (2004) Friends need a bit more: maintaining invariants over shared state. In: Mathematics of program construction

  7. Banerjee A, Naumann DA, Rosenberg S (2008) Regional logic for local reasoning about global invariants. In: European Conference on Object-oriented Programming (ECOOP)

  8. Barnett M, Naumann DA, Schulte W, Sun Qi (2004) 99.44% pure: useful abstractions in specifications. In: Formal techniques for Java-like programs (FTFJP)

  9. Bierman G, Parkinson M, Pitts A (2003) An imperative core calculus for Java and Java with effects. Technical report 563, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory

  10. Drossopoulou S, Eisenbach S (1997) The Java type system is sound—probably. In: European conference on object-oriented programming (ECOOP)

  11. Dovland J, Johnsen EB, Owe O, Steffen M (2008) Lazy behavioral subtyping. In: Formal methods (FM), vol 5014

  12. Darvas Á, Leino KRM (2007) Practical reasoning about invocations and implementations of pure methods. In: Fundamental approaches to software engineering (FASE)

  13. Darvas Á, Müller P (2006) Reasoning about method calls in interface specifications. J Obj Technol (JOT) (in press)

  14. de Moura L, Bjørner N (2008) Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Conference on tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems (TACAS)

  15. Distefano D, Parkinson M (2008) jStar: towards practical verification for Java. In: Conference on object oriented programming: systems, languages, and applications (OOPSLA)

  16. Igarashi A, Pierce B, Wadler P (1999) Featherweight Java: a minimal core calculus for Java and J. In: Conference on object oriented programming: systems, languages, and applications (OOPSLA)

  17. Jacobs B, Piessens F (2007) Inspector methods for state abstraction. J Obj Technol (JOT) 6(5): 13

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jacobs B, Piessens F (2008) The VeriFast program verifier. Technical report 520, Department of Computer Science, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

  19. Kassios YT (2006) Dynamic frames: support for framing, dependencies and sharing without restrictions. In: Formal methods (FM)

  20. Kassios YT (2006) A Theory of object oriented refinement, PhD thesis. University of Toronto

  21. Leavens GT (2006) JML’s rich, inherited specifications for behavioral subtypes. In: International conference on formal engineering methods (ICFEM)

  22. Leino KRM (1998) Data groups: specifying the modification of extended state. In: Conference on object oriented programming: systems, languages, and applications (OOPSLA)

  23. Leino KRM (2008) Specification and verification of object-oriented software. Marktoberdorf International Summer School—lecture notes

  24. Leavens GT, Leino KRM, Müller P (2007) Specification and verification challenges for sequential object-oriented programs. Formal Aspects Comput (FACS) 19(2): 159–189

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Leino KRM, Müller P (2004) Object invariants in dynamic contexts. In: European conference on object-oriented programming (ECOOP)

  26. Leino KRM, Müller P (2006) A verification methodology for model fields. In: European Symposium on Programming (ESOP)

  27. Leino KRM, Middelkoop R (2009) Proving consistency of pure methods and model fields. In: Fundamental approaches to software engineering (FASE)

  28. Leino KRM, Nelson G (2002) Data abstraction and information hiding. ACM Trans Progr Lang Syst (TOPLAS) 24(5): 491–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Leavens GT, Poll E, Clifton C, Cheon Y, Ruby C, Cok D, Müller P, Kiniry J, Chalin P (2007) JML reference manual

  30. Leino KRM, Poetzsch-Heffter A, Zhou Y (2002) Using data groups to specify and check side effects. In: Conference on programming language design and implementation (PLDI)

  31. Leino KRM, Schulte W (2007) Using history invariants to verify observers. In: European Symposium on Programming (ESOP)

  32. Liskov BH, Wing JM (1994) A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst (TOPLAS) 16(6): 1811–1841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Leavens GT, Wing JM (1998) Protective interface specifications. Formal Aspects Comput (FACS) 10(1): 59–75

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Müller P (2002) Modular specification and verification of object-oriented programs, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 2262. Springer, Berlin

  35. Parkinson M (2005) Local Reasoning for Java. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge

  36. Parkinson M (2007) Class invariants: The end of the road? In: International workshop on aliasing, confinement and ownership in object-oriented programming (IWACO)

  37. Parkinson M, Bierman G (2005) Separation logic and abstraction. In: Principles of programming languages (POPL)

  38. Parkinson M, Bierman G (2008) Separation logic, abstraction and inheritance. In: Principles of programming languages (POPL)

  39. Rudich A, Darvas Á, Müller P (2008) Checking well-formedness of pure-method specifications. In: Formal methods (FM)

  40. Reynolds JC (2002) Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures. In: Symposium on logic in Computer Science (LICS)

  41. Summers AJ, Drossopoulou S, Müller P (2009) The need for flexible object invariants. In: International workshop on aliasing, confinement and ownership in object-oriented programming (IWACO)

  42. Smans J, Jacobs B, Piessens F (2008) Implicit dynamic frames. In: Formal techniques for Java-like programs (FTFJP)

  43. Smans J, Jacobs B, Piessens F (2009) Implicit dynamic frames: combining dynamic frames and separation logic. In: European conference on object-oriented programming (ECOOP)

  44. Smans J, Jacobs B, Piessens F, Schulte W (2008) An automatic verifier for Java-like programs based on dynamic frames. In: Fundamental approaches to software engineering (FASE)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium

    Jan Smans, Bart Jacobs & Frank Piessens

  2. Microsoft Research, Redmond, USA

    Wolfram Schulte

Authors
  1. Jan Smans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bart Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Piessens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wolfram Schulte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Smans.

Additional information

J.L. Fiadeiro, P. Inverardi and T.S.E. Maibaum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smans, J., Jacobs, B., Piessens, F. et al. Automatic verification of Java programs with dynamic frames. Form Asp Comp 22, 423–457 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-010-0148-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-010-0148-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation