Abstract
In this extended abstract, we combine two techniques for program verification: one is Hoare-style static verification, and the other is model checking of state transition systems. We relate the two techniques semantically through the use of a ghost variable. Actions that are performed by the program can be logged into this variable, building an event structure as its value. We require the event structure to grow incrementally by construction, giving it behavior suitable for model checking. Invariants specify a correspondence between the event structure and the program state. The combined power of model checking and static code verification with separation logic based reasoning, gives a new and intuitive way to do program verification. We describe our idea in a tool-agnostic way: we do not give implementation details, nor do we assume that the static verification tool to which our idea might apply is implemented in a particular way.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Because how validity is defined in the next section, a process defined as \(A = A\) is equivalent to the process for which no event structures are valid, not even the empty one.
References
Abdulla, P.A., Aronis, S., Atig, M.F., Jonsson, B., Leonardsson, C., Sagonas, K.: Stateless model checking for TSO and PSO. In: Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) TACAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 353–367. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_28
Amighi, A.: Specification and verification of synchronisation classes in Java: a practical approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente (2018)
Blom, S., Huisman, M.: The VerCors tool for verification of concurrent programs. In: Jones, C., Pihlajasaari, P., Sun, J. (eds.) FM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8442, pp. 127–131. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06410-9_9
Calcagno, C., Parkinson, M., Vafeiadis, V.: Modular safety checking for fine-grained concurrency. In: Nielson, H.R., Filé, G. (eds.) SAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4634, pp. 233–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74061-2_15
Din, C.C., Dovland, J., Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O.: Observable behavior of distributed systems: component reasoning for concurrent objects. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 81(3), 227–256 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlap.2012.01.003, The 22nd Nordic Workshop on Programming Theory (NWPT 2010)
Fisman, D., Kupferman, O., Lustig, Y.: On verifying fault tolerance of distributed protocols. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pp. 315–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating sequential processes. Commun. ACM 21(8), 666–677 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1145/359576.359585
Komuravelli, A., Gurfinkel, A., Chaki, S.: SMT-based model checking for recursive programs. CoRR abs/1405.4028 (2014). http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.4028
Lamport, L., Owicki, S.: Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 4(3), 455–495 (1982). https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/proving-liveness-properties-concurrent-programs/
Oortwijn, W., Blom, S., Huisman, M.: Future-based static analysis of message passing programs. In: PLACES, pp. 65–72 (2016)
Oortwijn, W., Blom, S., Gurov, D., Huisman, M., Zaharieva-Stojanovski, M.: An abstraction technique for describing concurrent program behaviour. In: Paskevich, A., Wies, T. (eds.) VSTTE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10712, pp. 191–209. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72308-2_12
Pratt, V.: Modeling concurrency with partial orders. Int. J. Parallel Program. 15(1), 33–71 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01379149
Sirjani, M., Movaghar, A., Shali, A., de Boer, F.S.: Modeling and verification of reactive systems using Rebeca. Fundam. Inf. 63(4), 385–410 (2004). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2370686.2370691
Vafeiadis, V., Parkinson, M.: A marriage of rely/guarantee and separation logic. In: Caires, L., Vasconcelos, V.T. (eds.) CONCUR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4703, pp. 256–271. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74407-8_18
Vafeiadis, V.: Formal reasoning about the C11 weak memory model. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs, pp. 1–2. ACM (2015)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Joosten, S., Huisman, M. (2018). Static Code Verification Through Process Models. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds) Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Distributed Systems. ISoLA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11246. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03424-5_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03424-5_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03423-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03424-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)