Verification Using Test Generation Techniques

  • Vlad Rusu
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2391)

Abstract

Applying formal methods to testing has recently become a popular research topic. In this paper we explore the opposite approach, namely, applying testing techniques to formal verification. The idea is to use symbolic test generation to extract subgraphs (called components) from a specification and to perform the verification on the components rather than on the whole system. This may considerably reduce the verification effort and, under reasonable sufficient conditions, a safety property verified on a component also holds on the whole specification. We demonstrate the approach by verifying an electronic purse system using our symbolic test generation tool STG and the PVS theorem prover.

Keywords

Formal verification conformance testing electronic purse 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. Ammann and P. Black. Abstracting formal specifications to generate software tests via model checking. In Digital Avionics Systems Conference, DASC’99. Also a National Institute of Research and Technology research report, NIST-IR 6405.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, K.L. McMillan, D.L. Dill and J. Hwang. Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. Information and Computation, 98(2):142–170, 1992.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Ball, R. Majumdar, T. Millstein, and S.K. Ramajani. Automatic predicate abstraction of C programs. ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI’01, pages 203–213.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Belinfante, J. Feenstra, R. de Vries, J. Tretmans, N. Goga, L. Feijs, and S. Mauw. Formal test automation: a simple experiment. Int. Workshop on the Testing of Communicating Systems, IWTCS’99, pages 179–196.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Bensalem, V. Ganesh, Y. Lakhnech, C. Munoz, S. Owre, H. Rueß, J. Rushby, V. Rusu, H. Saïdi, N. Shankar, E. Singerman, and A. Tiwari. An overview of SAL. LFM 2000: NASA Langley Formal Methods Workshop, LFM’00, pages 187–196.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Bensalem and Y. Lakhnech. Automatic generation of invariants. Formal Methods in System Design, 15(1):75–92, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    CEPS: Common Electronic Purse System. http://www.cepsco.org.
  8. 8.
    D. Clarke, T. Jéron, V. Rusu, and E. Zinovieva. Automated test and oracle generation for smart-card applications. Conference on Research in Smart Cards, eSmart’01, pages 58–70. LNCS 2140.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Clarke, T. Jéron, V. Rusu, and E. Zinovieva. stg: a Symbolic Test Generation tool. Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS’02), pages 470–475. LNCS 2280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J-C. Fernandez, H. Garavel, A. Kerbrat, R. Mateescu, L. Mounier, and M. Sighireanu. CADP: A protocol validation and verification toolbox. Computer-Aided Verification, CAV’96. LNCS 1102.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Flanagan and S. Qadeer. Predicate Abstraction for Software Verification. To appear in Principles of Program Design, POPL’ 02.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Graf and H. Saïdi. Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. Computer Aided Verification, CAV’97, pages 72–83. LNCS 1254.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Halbwachs, Y.E. Proy, and P. Roumanoff. Verification of real-time systems using linear relation analysis. Formal Methods in System Design, 11(2):157–185, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Hatcliff and M. Dwyer, Using the Bandera tool set to model-check properties of concurrent Java software. Concurrency Theory, CONCUR’01, pages 39–59. LNCS 2154.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. Havelund and N. Shankar. Experiments in theorem proving and model checking for protocol verification. Formal Methods Europe, FME’96, pages 662–681. LNCS 1051.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T.A. Henzinger, R. Jhala, R. Majumdar, and G. Sutre. Lazy Abstraction. To appear in Principles of Program Design, POPL’ 02.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G.J. Holzmann. Design and validation of communication protocols. Prentice Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO/IEC. International Standard 9646, OSI-Open Systems Interconnection, Information Technology-Conformance Testing Methodology and Framework, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R.S Lazić, T.C. Newcomb, and A.W. Roscoe. On model checking data-independent systems with arrays without reset. Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Research Report RR-02-02.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Jéron and P. Morel. Test generation derived from model-checking. Computer-Aided Verification, CAV’99, pages 108–122. LNCS 1633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Owre, J. Rusby, N. Shankar, and F. von Henke. Formal verification of fault-tolerant architectures: Prolegomena to the design of pvs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(2): 107–125, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    V. Rusu. Verifying a sliding-window protocol using PVS. In Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems, FORTE’01, pages 251–266. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    V. Rusu, L. du Bousquet, and T. Jéron. An approach to symbolic test generation. Conference on Integrating Formal Methods (IFM’00), pages 338–357. LNCS 1945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. Saïdi and N. Shankar. Abstract and model check while you prove. Computer-Aided Verification, CAV’99, pages 443–454. LNCS 1633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    F. Tip. A survey of program slicing techniques. Technical Report CS-R9438, Centrum voor Wiskunde en InformatIca, 1994.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Tretmans. Testing concurrent systems: A formal approach. Concurrency Theory, CONCUR’99, pages 46–65. LNCS 1664.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    L. Van Aertryck, M. Benveniste, and D. Le Metayer. casting: a formally based software test generation method. In IEEE International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods (ICFEM’97), 1997.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Weiser. Program slicing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 10(4):352–357, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vlad Rusu
    • 1
  1. 1.IRISA/INRIARennesFrance

Personalised recommendations