Advertisement

Optimization of Component-Based Systems Run Time Verification

  • Lina Aliouat
  • Makhlouf AliouatEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 64)

Abstract

As technology evolves, software systems become more and more voluminous and complex. Being currently unable to produce programs free of errors, and in order to ensure that program behaviors comply with their specifications, formal verification of their essential properties is paramount. To this end, model-checking verification approach has been widely used and continues to be. However, if these properties have been verified on a system model, would they still true during any real system execution? So, modeled behavior of a system would be exactly the same in real executions when interacting with its environment? That is why verification during current system execution is essential stage even as a complementary way to other verification approaches. In this paper, we are concerned by runtime verification optimization of component-based systems in Behavior Interactions Priority (BIP) framework in order to significantly reduce time overhead. Our contribution in this paper is to consider only component states involved in the property being verified. The required states imply their associated components to be activated and those useless are disabled. Also, when a steady state is reached during monitoring process, the monitor is stopped which reduces system consumption resources. Our experiment results showed that a non negligible amount of space-time overhead was avoided.

Keywords

Runtime verification Time and space overhead optimization Component based systems BIP 

References

  1. 1.
    Basu, A., Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Combaz, J., Jaber, M., Nguyen, T.H., Sifakis, J.: Rigorous component-based system design using the bip framework. IEEE Softw. 28, 41–48 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: A brief account of runtime verification. J. Logic Algebr. Programm. 78, 293–303 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Falcone, Y., Jaber, M., Nguyen, T.H., Bozga, M., Bensalem, S.: Runtime verification of component-based systems in the bip framework with formally-proved sound and complete instrumentation. Softw. Syst. Model. 14, 173–199 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhou, G., Dong, W., Liu, W., Shi, H., Hu, C., Yin, L.: Optimizing monitor code based on patterns in runtime verification. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C), pp. 348–354. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonakdarpour, B., Navabpour, S., Fischmeister, S.: Sampling-based runtime verification. In: International Symposium on Formal Methods, pp. 88–102. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang, X., Seyster, J., Callanan, S., Dixit, K., Grosu, R., Smolka, S.A., Stoller, S.D., Zadok, E.: Software monitoring with controllable overhead. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 14, 327–347 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nazarpour, H., Falcone, Y., Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Combaz, J.: Monitoring multi-threaded component-based systems. Technical Report TR-2015-5, Verimag Research Report (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Comparing LTL semantics for runtime verification. J. Logic Comput. 20, 651–674 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J.C., Mounier, L.: What Can You Verify and Enforce at Runtime?, vol. 14, pp. 349–382. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, But How Ugly is Ugly?, pp. 126–138. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J.C., Mounier, L.: Runtime verification of safety-progress properties. International Workshop on Runtime Verification, pp. 40–59. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FEMTO-ST Institute, University Bourgogne Franche-Comt, CNRSMontbliardFrance
  2. 2.LRSD LaboratoryUniversity Ferhat Abbes Setif1SétifAlgeria

Personalised recommendations