Advertisement

Java Automated Deductive Verification in Practice: Lessons from Industrial Proof-Based Projects

  • David R. CokEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11247)

Abstract

Formal methods in the form of automated proof-based deductive verification is increasingly used in industry to give confidence in the security and correctness of libraries and applications. This paper presents observations on current tools and processes based on recent experience with verification projects on industrial software: scalability, breadth, specification language expressibility and semantics, capabilities of underlying SMT tools, and integration into industrial build and continuous integration processes.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.R., Hoare, A., Chapron, P.: The B-Book: Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahrendt, W., Beckert, B., Bubel, R., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H., Ulbrich, M. (eds.): Deductive Software Verification - The KeY Book - From Theory to Practice. LNCS, vol. 10001. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49812-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnes, J.: Spark: The Proven Approach to High Integrity Software. Altran Praxis, UK (2012). http://www.altran.co.uk
  4. 4.
    Barrett, C., Stump, A., Tinelli, C.: The SMT-LIB standard: version 2.0. In: Gupta, A., Kroening, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Satisfiability Modulo Theories, Edinburgh, England (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baudin, P.: ACSL: ANSI C Specification Language. http://frama-c.com/download/acsl_1.4.pdf
  6. 6.
    Burdy, L., et al.: An overview of JML tools and applications. In: Arts, T., Fokkink, W. (eds.) Eighth International Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems (FMICS 2003). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS), vol. 80, pages 73–89. Elsevier, June 2003Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cok, D.R.: Observational purity by underspecification (and separation logic?). In Dagstuhl Conference, Typing, Analysis and Verification of Heap-Manipulating Programs (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cok, D.: Improved usability and performance of SMT solvers for debugging specifications. STTT 12, 467–481 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cok, D.R.: OpenJML: JML for Java 7 by extending OpenJDK. In: Bobaru, M., Havelund, K., Holzmann, G.J., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6617, pp. 472–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20398-5_35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cok, D.R.: OpenJML: software verification for Java 7 using JML, OpenJDK, and Eclipse. In: Workshop on Formal Integrated Development Environment (F-IDE 2014). EPTCS, vol. 149, pp. 79–92, Grenoble, France, 06 April 2014 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cok, D.R.: Specification editing and discovery assistant for C/C++ software development. In: Nguyen, H., Steele, G. (eds.) SBIR Advanced Technologies in Aviation and Air Transportation System 2016 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cok, D.R., Johnson, S.C.: SPEEDY: an eclipse-based ide for invariant inference. In: Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science (EPTCS) (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cok, D.R., Kiniry, J.R.: ESC/Java2: uniting ESC/Java and JML. In: Barthe, G., Burdy, L., Huisman, M., Lanet, J.-L., Muntean, T. (eds.) CASSIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3362, pp. 108–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30569-9_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cok, D.R., Leavens, G.T.: Extensions of the theory of observational purity and a practical design for JML. In: Seventh International Workshop on Specification and Verification of Component-Based Systems (SAVCBS 2008), pp. 43–50, November 2008. CS-TR-08-07 (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cok, D.R., Tasiran, S.: Practical Methods for Reasoning about Java 8’s Functional Programming Features. VSTTE 2018 (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garland, S.J., Guttag, J.V.: A guide to LP, the larch prover. Technical report 82, Digital Equipment Corporation, Systems Research Center, 130 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, December 1991. Order from src-report@src.dec.comGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hatcliff, J., Leavens, G.T., Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P., Parkinson, M.: Behavioral interface specification languages. Technical report CS-TR-09-01, School of EECS, University of Central Florida, Orlando, March 2009Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jacobs, B., Kiniry, J., Warnier, M.: Java program verification challenges. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2852, pp. 202–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39656-7_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kassios, I.T., Müller, P.: Modular specification and verification of delegation with SMT solvers. Technical report, ETH Zurich (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leavens, G.T., Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P.: Specification and verification challenges for sequential object-oriented programs. Form. Asp. Comput. 19(2), 159–189 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leavens, G.T., et al.: JML Reference Manual. Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University (2013). http://www.jmlspecs.org
  23. 23.
    Leino, K.R.M.: Dafny: an automatic program verifier for functional correctness. In: Clarke, E.M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6355, pp. 348–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17511-4_20CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meyer, B.: Object-Oriented Software Construction. Prentice Hall, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Müller, P., Poetzsch-Heffter, A., Leavens, G.T.: Modular invariants for layered object structures. Sci. Comput. Program. 62(3), 253–286 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Naumann, D.A.: Observational purity and encapsulation. Theor. Comput. Sci. 376(3), 205–224 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parnas, D.L.: Tabular representation of relations. Technical report (1992)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singleton, J.L., Leavens, G.T., Rajan, H., Cok, D.R.: Poster: an algorithm and tool to infer practical postconditions. In: 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Spivey, J.M.: The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd., London (1992)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Many papers regarding JML can be found on the JML. http://www.jmlspecs.org
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
    The Spec# web site gives code, documentation and papers. http://research.microsoft.com/SpecSharp/
  36. 36.
    The work on C++ specification is part of the VESSEDIA project. The VESSEDIA project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 731453. https://vessedia.eu

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEA, LIST, Software Safety and Security LaboratoryGif-sur-YvetteFrance

Personalised recommendations