autoC: an efficient translator for model checking deterministic scheduler based OSEK/VDX applications

Science China Information Sciences volume 61, Article number: 052102 (2018) Cite this article

Abstract

The OSEK/VDX automotive OS standard has been widely adopted by many automobile manufacturers, such as BMW and TOYOTA, as the basis for designing and implementing a vehicle-mounted OS. With the increasing functionalities in vehicles, more and more multi-task applications are developed based on the OSEK/VDX OS. Currently, ensuring the reliability of the developed applications is becoming a challenge for developers. As to ensure the reliability of OSEK/VDX applications, model checking as a potential solution has attracted great attention in the automotive industry. However, existing model checkers are often unable to verify a large-scale OSEK/VDX application that consists of many tasks, since the corresponding application model too complex. To make existing model checkers more scalable in verifying large-scale OSEK/VDX applications, we describe a software tool named autoC to tackle this problem by automatically translating a multi-task OSEK/VDX application into an equivalent sequential model. We conducted a series of experiments to evaluate the efficiency of autoC. The experimental results show that autoC is not only capable of efficiently sequentializing OSEK/VDX applications, but also of improving the scalability and efficiency of existing model checkers in verifying large-scale OSEK/VDX applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. 1

    Lemieux J. Programming in the OSEK/VDX Environment. New York: CMP Media, Inc., 2011

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Clarke E M, Emerson E A, Sifakis J. Model checking: algorithmic verification and debugging. Commun ACM, 2009, 152: 74–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Clarke E M, Grumberg O, Long D E. Model checking and abstraction. ACM Trans Programm Languages Syst, 1994, 16: 1512–1542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Pu F, Zhang W H. Combining search space partition and abstraction for LTL model checking. Sci China Ser F-Inf Sci, 2007, 50: 793–810

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Holzmann G J. The Spin Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Boston: Lucent Technologies Inc., 2003

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Morse J, Ramalho M, Cordeiro L, et al. ESBMC 1.22. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Berlin: Springer, 2014. 405–407

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Cohen E, Dahlweid M, Hillebrand M, et al. VCC: a practical system for verifying concurrent C. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics. Berlin: Springer, 2009. 23–42

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Cordeiro L, Fischer B. Verifying multi-threaded software using SMT-based context-bounded model checking. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, Waikiki, 2011. 331–340

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Cimatti A, Micheli A, Narasamdya I, et al. Verifying SystemC: a software model checking approach. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, Lugano, 2010. 51–60

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Zhang H T, Aoki T, Chiba Y. A spin-based approach for checking OSEK/VDX applications. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop Formal Techniques for Safety-Critical Systems (FTSCS), Paris, 2014. 239–255

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Waszniowski L, Hanzalek Z. Formal verification of multitasking applications based on timed automata model. J Real-Time Syst, 2008, 38: 39–65

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Clarke E M, Klieber W, Novacek M, et al. Model checking and the state explosion problem. In: Tools for Practical Software Verification. Berlin: Springer, 2012. 1–30

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Zhang H T, Aoki T, Chiba Y. Yes! You can use your model checker to verify OSEK/VDX applications. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, Graz, 2015. 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Campana D, Cimatti A, Narasamdya I, et al. An analytic evaluation of SystemC encodings in Promela. In: Proceedings of the 18th International SPIN Conference on Model Checking Software, Snowbird, 2011. 90–107

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Inverso O, Tomasco E, Fischer B, et al. Lazy-CSeq: a lazy sequentialization tool for C. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Grenoble, 2014. 398–401

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    IEEE Standard for Information Technology. Portable operating system interface (POSIX) base specifications. Issue 7. http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/interp/1003.1-2008.html

  17. 17

    Burns A, Wellings A. Real-Time Systems and Programming Languages. 4th ed. New York: AddisonWesley Longmain, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    George C N, Scott M, Shree P, et al. CIL: intermediate language and tools for analysis and transformation of C programs. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Compiler Construction. London: Springer, 2002. 213–228

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Clarke E, Kroening D, Lerda F. A tool for checking ANSI-C programings. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Berlin: Springer, 2004. 168–176

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Yang Z J, Wang C, Gupta A, et al. Model checking sequential software programs via mixed symbolic analysis. ACM Trans Design Autom Electron Syst, 2009, 14: 1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Armin B, Clarke E M, Zhu Y S. Bounded model checking. Adv Comput, 2003, 58: 117–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Tian C, Duan Z H. Detecting spurious counterexamples efficiently in abstract model checking. In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering, San Francisco, 2013. 202–211

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Tian C, Duan Z H, Duan Z. Making CEGAR more efficient in software model checking. IEEE Trans Softw Eng, 2014, 40: 1206–1223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Basili V R, Selby R W. Comparing the effectiveness of software testing strategies. IEEE Trans Softw Eng, 1987, 13: 1278–1296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Hoffmann J, Ussath M, Holz T, et al. Slicing droids: program slicing for smali code. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Portugal, 2013. 1844–1851

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Chen J, Aoki T. Conformance testing for OSEK/VDX operating system using model checking. In: Proceedings of the 18th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Washington, 2011. 274–281

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Choi Y J. Safety analysis of trampoline OS using model checking: an experience report. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 22nd International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, Washington, 2011. 200–209

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Huang Y H, Zhao Y X, Zhu L F, et al. Modeling and verifying the code-level OSEK/VDX operating system with CSP. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering, Xi’an, 2011. 142–149

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Zhang H T, Aoki T, Lin X H, et al. SMT-based bounded model checking for OSEK/VDX applications. In: Proceedings of the 20th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Bangkok, 2013. 307–314

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Liu Z M, Joseph M. Specification and verification of fault-tolerance, timing, and scheduling. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst, 1999, 21: 46–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61602224, 61472240) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant Nos. lzujbky-2016-142, lzujbky-2016-k07).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. School of Information Science and Engineering, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China

    Haitao Zhang

  2. School of Information Science, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Nomi, 923-1211, Japan

    Zhuo Cheng

  3. School of Software, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China

    Guoqiang Li

  4. Faculty of Computer and Information Sciences, Hosei University, Tokyo, 184-8584, Japan

    Shaoying Liu

Authors
  1. Haitao Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhuo Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guoqiang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shaoying Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haitao Zhang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, H., Cheng, Z., Li, G. et al. autoC: an efficient translator for model checking deterministic scheduler based OSEK/VDX applications. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 61, 052102 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-016-9039-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • OSEK/VDX application
  • deterministic scheduler
  • software formal method
  • model checking
  • sequentialization