Programming and Computer Software

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 198–205 | Cite as

Comparison of specification decomposition methods in Event-B

  • P. N. Devyanin
  • V. V. Kulyamin
  • A. K. Petrenko
  • A. V. Khoroshilov
  • I. V. Shchepetkov
Article

Abstract

Decomposition is an important phase in the design of medium and large-scale systems. Various architectures of software systems and decomposition methods are studied in numerous publications. Presently, formal specifications of software systems are mainly used for experimental purposes; for this reason, their size and complexity are relatively low. As a result, in the development of a nontrivial specification, different approaches to the decomposition should be compared and the most suitable approach should be chosen. In this paper, the experience gained in the deductive verification of the formal specification of the mandatory entity-role model of access and information flows control in Linux (MROSL DP-model) using the formal Event-B method and stepwise refinement technique is analyzed. Two approaches to the refinementbased decomposition of specifications are compared and the sources and features of the complexity of the architecture of the model are investigated.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Devyanin, P.N., Models of Security of Computer Systems: Access control and Data Flows, Moscow: Hot line Telecom, Moscow, 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Devyanin, P.N., Security Conditions for Information Flows by Memory in the MROSL DP-model, Prikl. Diskr. Mat, Appendix, 2014, vol. 7, pp. 82–85.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Astra Linux. http://wwwastra-linuxcomGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Devyanin, P., Khoroshilov, A., Kuliamin, V., et al., Formal Verification of OS Security Model with Alloy and Event-B, Proc. of the Fourth Int. Conf. on Abstract State Machines, Alloy, B, TLA, VDM, and Z (ABZ- 2014), Toulouse 2014, pp. 309–313. https://wwwspringercom/us/book/9783662436516Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Devyanin, P.N., Kulyamin V.V., Petrenko, A.K., et al., On the Representation of the MROSL DP-model in the Formalized Event-B Notation (Rodin Platform), Konf. RusKripto-2014 (Proc. of the Conf, RusKripto- 2014), Moscow, 2014. http://wwwruscryptoru/ resource/ summary/rc2014/05_devyaninpdfGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abrial, J.-R., Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abrial, J.-R., M. Butler, S. Hallerstede, et al., Rodin: An Open Toolset for Modelling and Reasoning in Event-B, Int. J. on Software Tools for Technol. Transfer, 2010, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 447–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kulyamin V.V., Methods of Software Verification, Competition of Reviews on Information and Telecommunication Systems, 2008.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Damchoom, K., An Incremental Refinement Approach to a Development of a Flash-Based File System in Event-B, Ph. D. thesis, University of Southampton, School of Electronics and Computer Science, 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. N. Devyanin
    • 1
  • V. V. Kulyamin
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • A. K. Petrenko
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • A. V. Khoroshilov
    • 2
    • 5
  • I. V. Shchepetkov
    • 2
  1. 1.Educational Information Security CommunityMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Institute for System ProgrammingRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Moscow State University, Moscow, 119991 Russia GSP-1Leninskie Gory, MoscowRussia
  4. 4.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  5. 5.Moscow Institute of Physics and TechnologyDolgoprudnyi, Moscow oblastRussia

Personalised recommendations