Advertisement

Verification-Aided Debugging: An Interactive Web-Service for Exploring Error Witnesses

  • Dirk Beyer
  • Matthias Dangl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9780)

Abstract

Traditionally, a verification task is considered solved as soon as a property violation or a correctness proof is found. In practice, this is where the actual work starts: Is it just a false alarm? Is the error reproducible? Can the error report later be re-used for bug fixing or regression testing? The advent of exchangeable witnesses is a paradigm shift in verification, from simple answers true and false towards qualitatively more valuable information about the reason for the property violation. This paper explains a convenient web-based toolchain that can be used to answer the above questions. We consider as example application the verification of C programs. Our first component collects witnesses and stores them for later re-use; for example, if the bug is fixed, the witness can be tried once again and should now be rejected, or, if the bug was not scheduled for fixing, the database can later provide the witnesses in case an engineer wants to start fixing the bug. Our second component is a web service that takes as input a witness for the property violation and (re-)validates it, i.e., it re-plays the witness on the system in order to re-explore the state-space in question. The third component is a web service that continues from the second step by offering an interactive visualization that interconnects the error path, the system’s sources, the values on the path (test vectors), and the reachability graph. We evaluated the feasibility of our approach on a large benchmark of verification tasks.

References

  1. 1.
    Aljazzar, H., Leue, S.: Debugging of dependability models using interactive visualization of counterexamples. In: Rubino, G. (ed.) Proc. QUEST 2008, pp. 189–198. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beyer, D.: Reliable and reproducible competition results with BenchExec and witnesses (Report on SV-COMP 2016). In: Chechik, M., Raskin, J.-F. (eds.) Proc. TACAS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9636, pp. 887–904. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyer, D., Chlipala, A.J., Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: The Blast query language for software verification. In: Giacobazzi, R. (ed.) Proc. SAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3148, pp. 2–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beyer, D., Dangl, M., Dietsch, D., Heizmann, M., Stahlbauer, A.: Witness validation and stepwise testification across software verifiers. In: Di Nitto, E., Harman, M., Heymans, P. (eds.) Proc. FSE 2015, pp. 721–733. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beyer, D., Keremoglu, M.E.: CPAchecker: a tool for configurable software verification. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) Proc. CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 184–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beyer, D., Wendler, P.: Reuse of verification results: conditional model checking, precision reuse, and verification witnesses. In: Bartocci, E., Ramakrishnan, C.R. (eds.) Proc. SPIN 2013. LNCS, vol. 7976, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A., Sifakis, J.: Model checking: algorithmic verification and debugging. Commun. ACM 52(11), 74–84 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM 50(5), 752–794 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groce, A., Kröning, D., Lerda, F.: Understanding counterexamples with explain. In: Alur, R., Peled, D.A. (eds.) Proc. CAV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3114, pp. 453–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rocha, H., Barreto, R., Cordeiro, L., Neto, A.D.: Understanding programming bugs in ANSI-C software using bounded model checking counter-examples. In: Derrick, J., Gnesi, S., Latella, D., Treharne, H. (eds.) Proc. IFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7321, pp. 128–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Beyer
    • 1
  • Matthias Dangl
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PassauPassauGermany

Personalised recommendations