Advertisement

Model Checking of C++ Programs Under the x86-TSO Memory Model

  • Vladimír ŠtillEmail author
  • Jiří Barnat
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11232)

Abstract

In this work, we present an extension of the DIVINE model checker that allows for analysis of C and C++ programs under the Open image in new window relaxed memory model. We use an approach in which the program to be verified is first transformed, so that it itself encodes the relaxed memory behavior, and after that it is verified by an explicit-state model checker supporting only the standard sequentially consistent memory. The novelty of our approach is in a careful design of an encoding of Open image in new window operations so that the nondeterminism introduced by the relaxed memory simulation is minimized. In particular, we allow for nondeterminism only in connection with memory fences and load operations of those memory addresses that were written to by a preceding store. We evaluate and compare our approach with the state-of-the-art bounded model checker CBMC and stateless model checker Nidhugg. For the comparison we employ SV-COMP concurrency benchmarks that do not exhibit data nondeterminism, and we show that our solution built on top of the explicit-state model checker outperforms both of the other tools. The implementation is publicly available as an open source software.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    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_28CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdulla, P.A., Atig, M.F., Bouajjani, A., Ngo, T.P.: Context-bounded analysis for POWER. In: Legay, A., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10206, pp. 56–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alglave, J., Kroening, D., Nimal, V., Tautschnig, M.: Software verification for weak memory via program transformation. In: Felleisen, M., Gardner, P. (eds.) ESOP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7792, pp. 512–532. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37036-6_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alglave, J., Maranget, L.: Stability in weak memory models. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 50–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alglave, J., Maranget, L., Tautschnig, M.: Herding cats: modelling, simulation, testing, and data mining for weak memory. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 36(2), 7:1–7:74 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atig, M.F., Bouajjani, A., Burckhardt, S., Musuvathi, M.: On the verification problem for weak memory models. In: POPL, pp. 7–18. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Atig, M.F., Bouajjani, A., Parlato, G.: Getting rid of store-buffers in TSO analysis. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 99–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baranová, Z., et al.: Model checking of C and C++ with DIVINE 4. In: D’Souza, D., Narayan Kumar, K. (eds.) ATVA 2017. LNCS, vol. 10482, pp. 201–207. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68167-2_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beyer, D.: Software verification with validation of results. In: Legay, A., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10206, pp. 331–349. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bouajjani, A., Calin, G., Derevenetc, E., Meyer, R.: Lazy TSO reachability. In: Egyed, A., Schaefer, I. (eds.) FASE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9033, pp. 267–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46675-9_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bouajjani, A., Derevenetc, E., Meyer, R.: Checking and enforcing robustness against TSO. In: Felleisen, M., Gardner, P. (eds.) ESOP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7792, pp. 533–553. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37036-6_29CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burckhardt, S., Musuvathi, M.: Effective program verification for relaxed memory models. In: Gupta, A., Malik, S. (eds.) CAV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5123, pp. 107–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70545-1_12CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burnim, J., Sen, K., Stergiou, C.: Sound and complete monitoring of sequential consistency for relaxed memory models. In: Abdulla, P.A., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) TACAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6605, pp. 11–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19835-9_3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clarke, E., Kroening, D., Lerda, F.: A tool for checking ANSI-C programs. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 168–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24730-2_15CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dan, A.M., Meshman, Y., Vechev, M., Yahav, E.: Predicate abstraction for relaxed memory models. In: Logozzo, F., Fähndrich, M. (eds.) SAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7935, pp. 84–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38856-9_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Derevenetc, E., Meyer, R.: Robustness against power is PSpace-complete. In: Esparza, J., Fraigniaud, P., Husfeldt, T., Koutsoupias, E. (eds.) ICALP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8573, pp. 158–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43951-7_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dill, D.L.: The Mur \(\upphi \) verification system. In: Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) CAV 1996. LNCS, vol. 1102, pp. 390–393. Springer, Heidelberg (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61474-5_86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Flanagan, C., Godefroid, P.: Dynamic partial-order reduction for model checking software. In: POPL, pp. 110–121. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Flur, S., et al.: Modelling the ARMv8 architecture, operationally: concurrency and ISA. In: POPL, pp. 608–621. ACM, New York (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Godefroid, P.: Model checking for programming languages using VeriSoft. In: POPL, pp. 174–186. ACM, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The model checker SPIN. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 23(5), 279–295 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huynh, T.Q., Roychoudhury, A.: A memory model sensitive checker for C#. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 476–491. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11813040_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kokologiannakis, M., Lahav, O., Sagonas, K., Vafeiadis, V.: Effective stateless model checking for C/C++ concurrency. In: Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, vol. 2, pp. 17:1–17:32, December 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kroening, D., Tautschnig, M.: CBMC – C bounded model checker. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 389–391. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lamport, L.: How to make a multiprocessor computer that correctly executes multiprocess programs. IEEE Trans. Comput. 28(9), 690–691 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Linden, A., Wolper, P.: An automata-based symbolic approach for verifying programs on relaxed memory models. In: van de Pol, J., Weber, M. (eds.) SPIN 2010. LNCS, vol. 6349, pp. 212–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16164-3_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mador-Haim, S., et al.: An axiomatic memory model for POWER multiprocessors. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 495–512. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31424-7_36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Norris, B., Demsky, B.: CDSchecker: checking concurrent data structures written with C/C++ atomics. In: OOPSLA, pp. 131–150. ACM, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peizhao, O., Demsky, B.: Checking concurrent data structures under the C/C++11 memory model. SIGPLAN 52(8), 45–59 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Park, S., Dill, D.L.: An executable specification, analyzer and verifier for RMO (Relaxed Memory Order). In: SPAA, pp. 34–41. ACM, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pulte, C., Flur, S., Deacon, W., French, J., Sarkar, S., Sewell, P.: Simplifying ARM concurrency: multicopy-atomic axiomatic and operational models for ARMv8. In: Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, vol. 2, pp. 19:1–19:29, December 2017Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ročkai, P., Štill, V., Černá, I., Barnat, J.: DiVM: model checking with LLVM and graph memory. J. Syst. Softw. 143, 1–13 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sarkar, S., Sewell, P., Alglave, J., Maranget, L., Williams, D.: Understanding POWER multiprocessors. In: PLDI, pp. 175–186. ACM, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sewell, P., Sarkar, S., Owens, S., Nardelli, F.Z., Myreen, M.O.: X86-TSO: a rigorous and usable programmer’s model for x86 multiprocessors. Commun. ACM 53(7), 89–97 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    CORPORATE SPARC International, Inc.: The SPARC Architecture Manual (Version 9). Prentice-Hall Inc, Upper Saddle River (1994)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Štill, V., Ročkai, P., Barnat, J.: Weak memory models as LLVM-to-LLVM transformations. In: Kofroň, J., Vojnar, T. (eds.) MEMICS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9548, pp. 144–155. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29817-7_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Štill, V., Ročkai, P., Barnat, J.: Using off-the-shelf exception support components in C++ verification. In: QRS, pp. 54–64. IEEE, July 2017Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Turon, A., Vafeiadis, V., Dreyer, D.: GPS: navigating weak memory with ghosts, protocols, and separation. In: OOPSLA, pp. 691–707. ACM, New York (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vafeiadis, V., Narayan, C.: Relaxed separation logic: a program logic for C11 concurrency. In: OOPSLA, pp. 867–884. ACM, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yang, Y., Gopalakrishnan, G., Lindstrom, G.: Memory-model-sensitive data race analysis. In: Davies, J., Schulte, W., Barnett, M. (eds.) ICFEM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3308, pp. 30–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30482-1_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhang, N., Kusano, M., Wang, C.: Dynamic partial order reduction for relaxed memory models. In: PLDI, pp. 250–259. ACM, New York (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of InformaticsMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options