Symbolic Verification of Lossy Channel Systems: Application to the Bounded Retransmission Protocol

  • Parosh Abdulla
  • Aurore Annichini
  • Ahmed Bouajjani
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1579)


We consider the problem of verifying automatically infinite- state systems that are systems of finite machines that communicate by exchanging messages through unbounded lossy fifo channels. In a previous work [1], we proposed an algorithmic approach based on constructing a symbolic representation of the set of reachable configurations of a system by means of a class of regular expressions (SREs). The construction of such a representation consists of an iterative computation with an acceleration technique which enhances the chance of convergence. This technique is based on the analysis of the effect of iterating control loops. In the work we present here, we experiment our approach and show how it can be effectively applied. For that, we developed a tool prototype based on the results in [1]. Using this tool, we provide an automatic verification of (the parameterized version of) the Bounded Retransmission Protocol.


Model Check Control Loop Safety Property Label Transition System Symbolic State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    P. Abdulla, A. Bouajjani, and B. Jonsson. On-the-fly Analysis of Systems with Unbounded, Lossy Fifo Channels. In CAV’98. LNCS 1427, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Bensalem, A. Bouajjani, C. Loiseaux, and J. Sifakis. Property-preserving simulations. In CAV’92. LNCS 663, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Bensalem, Y. Lakhnech, and S. Owre. Computing Abstractions of Infinite State Systems Compositionally and Automatically. In CAV’98. LNCS 1427, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Boigelot and P. Godefroid. Symbolic Verification of Communication Protocols with Infinite State Spaces using QDDs. In CAV’96. LNCS 1102, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Boigelot, P. Godefroid, B. Willems, and P. Wolper. The power of QDDs. In SAS’97. LNCS 1302, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Boigelot and P. Wolper. Symbolic Verification with Periodic Sets. In CAV’94. LNCS 818, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Bouajjani and P. Habermehl. Symbolic Reachability Analysis of FIFO-Channel Systems with Nonregular Sets of Configurations. In ICALP’97. LNCS 1256, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gérard Cécé, Alain Finkel, and S. Purushothaman Iyer. Unreliable Channels Are Easier to Verify Than Perfect Channels. Inf. and Comp., 124(1):20–31, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Static Determination of Dynamic Properties of Recursive Procedures. In IFIP Conf. on Formal Desc. of Prog. Concepts. NH Pub., 1977.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. D’Argenio, J-P. Katoen, T. Ruys, and G. J. Tretmans. The Bounded Retrans-mission Protocol must be on Time. In TACAS’97. LNCS 1217, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J-C. Fernandez, H. Garavel, A. Kerbrat, R. Mateescu, L. Mounier, and M. Sighireanu. CADP: A Protocol Validation and Verification Toolbox. In CAV’96. LNCS 1102, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Finkel and O. Marcé. Verification of Infinite Regular Communicating Automata. Technical report, LIFAC, ENS de Cachan, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Graf and H. Saidi. Construction of Abstract State Graphs with PVS. In CAV’97, volume 1254 of LNCS, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J-F. Groote and J. Van de Pol. A Bounded Retransmission Protocol for Large Data Packets. In AMAST’96. LNCS 1101, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    O. Grumberg and D. Long. Model Checking and Modular Verification. ACM TOPLAS, 16:843–871, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. Havelund and N. Shankar. Experiments in Theorem Proving and Model Checking for Protocol Verification. In FME’96. LNCS 1051, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Helmink, M. P. A. Sellink, and F. Vaandrager. Proof checking a Data Link Protocol. In Types for Proofs and Programs. LNCS 806, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. M. Karp and R. E. Miller. Parallel Program Schemata: A Mathematical Model for Parallel Computation. In 8th ann. Switch. and Aut. Theo. Symp. IEEE, 1967.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Mateescu. Formal Description and Analysis of a Bounded Retransmission Protocol. Technical report no. 2965, INRIA, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. K. Pachl. Protocol Description and Analysis Based on a State Transition Model with Channel Expressions. In Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification VII, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Parosh Abdulla
    • 1
  • Aurore Annichini
    • 2
  • Ahmed Bouajjani
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer SystemsUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Verimag, Centre EquationGièresFrance

Personalised recommendations