Advertisement

Sharing Ghost Variables in a Collection of Abstract Domains

  • Marc ChevalierEmail author
  • Jérôme Feret
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11990)

Abstract

We propose a framework in which we share ghost variables across a collection of abstract domains allowing precise proofs of complex properties.

In abstract interpretation, it is often necessary to be able to express complex properties while doing a precise analysis. A way to achieve that is to combine a collection of domains, each handling some kind of properties, using a reduced product. Separating domains allows an easier and more modular implementation, and eases soundness and termination proofs. This way, we can add a domain for any kind of property that is interesting. The reduced product, or an approximation of it, is in charge of refining abstract states, making the analysis precise.

In program verification, ghost variables can be used to ease proofs of properties by storing intermediate values that do not appear directly in the execution.

We propose a reduced product of abstract domains that allows domains to use ghost variables to ease the representation of their internal state. Domains must be totally agnostic with respect to other existing domains. In particular the handling of ghost variables must be entirely decentralized while still ensuring soundness and termination of the analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Černý, P., Weinstein, S.: Algorithmic analysis of array-accessing programs. In: Grädel, E., Kahle, R. (eds.) CSL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5771, pp. 86–101. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04027-6_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amato, G., Scozzari, F., Seidl, H., Apinis, K., Vojdani, V.: Efficiently intertwining widening and narrowing. Sci. Comput. Program. 120, 1–24 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2015.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blanchet, B., et al.: A static analyzer for large safety-critical software. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2003 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2003), pp. 196–207. ACM Press, San Diego (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bourdoncle, F.: Abstract interpretation by dynamic partitioning. J. Funct. Program. 2(4), 407–423 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956796800000496MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang, B.-Y.E., Leino, K.R.M.: Abstract interpretation with alien expressions and heap structures. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) VMCAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3385, pp. 147–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30579-8_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cortesi, A., Costantini, G., Ferrara, P.: A survey on product operators in abstract interpretation. In: Semantics, Abstract Interpretation, and Reasoning about Programs: Essays Dedicated to David A. Schmidt on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Manhattan, Kansas, USA, 19–20 September 2013, pp. 325–336 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.129.19
  7. 7.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: Conference Record of the Fourth Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 238–252. ACM Press, New York, Los Angeles (1977)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In: Conference Record of the Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, San Antonio, Texas, USA, January 1979, pp. 269–282 (1979).  https://doi.org/10.1145/567752.567778
  9. 9.
    Cousot, P., et al.: Combination of abstractions in the ASTRÉE static analyzer. In: Okada, M., Satoh, I. (eds.) ASIAN 2006. LNCS, vol. 4435, pp. 272–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77505-8_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dershowitz, N., Manna, Z.: Proving termination with multiset orderings. Commun. ACM 22(8), 465–476 (1979).  https://doi.org/10.1145/359138.359142MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feret, J.: Confidentiality analysis of mobile systems. In: Palsberg, J. (ed.) SAS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1824, pp. 135–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45099-3_8CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halbwachs, N., Péron, M.: Discovering properties about arrays in simple programs. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2008 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Tucson, AZ, USA, 7–13 June 2008, pp. 339–348 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1375581.1375623
  13. 13.
    Journault, M., Miné, A., Monat, M., Ouadjaout, A.: Combinations of reusable abstract domains for a multilingual static analyzer. In: Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Verified Software: Theories, Tools, and Experiments (VSTTE19), New York, USA, pp. 1–17 (2019, to appear). http://www-apr.lip6.fr/~mine/publi/article-mine-al-vstte19.pdf
  14. 14.
    Miné, A.: Field-sensitive value analysis of embedded C programs with union types and pointer arithmetics. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGPLAN/SIGBED Conference on Language, Compilers, and Tool Support for Embedded Systems, LCTES 2006, pp. 54–63. ACM, Ottawa (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1134650.1134659
  15. 15.
    Péron, M.: Contributions à l’analyse statique de programmes manipulant des tableaux. (Contributions to the Static Analysis of Programs Handling Arrays). Grenoble Alpes University, France (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Platzer, A., Tan, Y.K.: Differential equation axiomatization: the impressive power of differential ghosts. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2018, Oxford, UK, 09–12 July 2018, pp. 819–828 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3209108.3209147
  17. 17.
    Venet, A.: Abstract cofibered domains: application to the alias analysis of untyped programs. In: Cousot, R., Schmidt, D.A. (eds.) SAS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1145, pp. 366–382. Springer, Heidelberg (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61739-6_53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Venet, A.: Automatic analysis of pointer aliasing for untyped programs. Sci. Comput. Program. 35(2), 223–248 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Venet, A.: Automatic determination of communication topologies in mobile systems. In: Levi, G. (ed.) SAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1503, pp. 152–167. Springer, Heidelberg (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49727-7_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.InriaParisFrance
  2. 2.Département d’informatique de l’ENS, ENS, CNRS, PSL UniversityParisFrance

Personalised recommendations