Proof Repositories for Compositional Verification of Evolving Software Systems

Managing Change When Proving Software Correct
  • Richard Bubel
  • Ferruccio Damiani
  • Reiner Hähnle
  • Einar Broch Johnsen
  • Olaf Owe
  • Ina Schaefer
  • Ingrid Chieh Yu
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9960)

Abstract

We propose a new and systematic framework for proof reuse in the context of deductive software verification. The framework generalizes abstract contracts into incremental proof repositories. Abstract contracts enable a separation of concerns between called methods and their implementations, facilitating proof reuse. Proof repositories allow the systematic caching of partial proofs that can be adapted to different method implementations. The framework provides flexible support for compositional verification in the context of, e.g., partly developed programs, evolution of programs and contracts, and product variability.

References

  1. 1.
    Barnett, M., DeLine, R., Fähndrich, M., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants. J. Object Technol. 3(6), 27–56 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnett, M., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: The Spec# programming system: an overview. In: Barthe, G., Burdy, L., Huisman, M., Lanet, J.-L., Muntean, T. (eds.) CASSIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3362, pp. 49–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30569-9_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beckert, B., Hähnle, R.: Reasoning and verification. IEEE Intell. Syst. 29(1), 20–29 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beckert, B., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H. (eds.): Verification of Object-Oriented Software. The KeY Approach. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4334. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beckert, B., Klebanov, V.: Proof reuse for deductive program verification. In: Third IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, pp. 77–86. IEEE Computer Society (2004). http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/SEFM.2004.10013
  6. 6.
    Beckert, B., Schmitt, P.H.: Program verification using change information. In: Proceedings, Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM), Brisbane, Australia, pp. 91–99. IEEE Press (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bettini, L., Damiani, F., Schaefer, I.: Compositional type checking of delta-oriented software product lines. Acta Inform. 50(2), 77–122 (2013). doi:10.1007/s00236-012-0173-z MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruns, D., Klebanov, V., Schaefer, I.: Verification of software product lines with delta-oriented slicing. In: Beckert, B., Marché, C. (eds.) FoVeOOS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6528, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18070-5_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bubel, R., Hähnle, R., Pelevina, M.: Fully abstract operation contracts. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8803, pp. 120–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45231-8_9 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Damiani, F., Dovland, J., Johnsen, E.B., Schaefer, I.: Verifying traits: an incremental proof system for fine-grained reuse. Formal Aspects Comput. 26(4), 761–793 (2014)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Damiani, F., Owe, O., Dovland, J., Schaefer, I., Johnsen, E.B., Yu, I.C.: A transformational proof system for delta-oriented programming. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC), vol. 2, pp. 53–60. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dovland, J., Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O., Steffen, M.: Lazy behavioral subtyping. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 79(7), 578–607 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dovland, J., Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O., Steffen, M.: Incremental reasoning with lazy behavioral subtyping for multiple inheritance. Sci. Comput. Program. 76(10), 915–941 (2011)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dovland, J., Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O., Yu, I.C.: A proof system for adaptable class hierarchies. J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program. 84(1), 37–53 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dovland, J., Johnsen, E.B., Yu, I.C.: Tracking behavioral constraints during object-oriented software evolution. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7609, pp. 253–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34026-0_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Engel, C., Roth, A., Schmitt, P.H., Weiß, B.: Verification of modifies clauses in dynamic logic with non-rigid functions. Technical report 2009–9, Department of Computer Science, University of Karlsruhe (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fähndrich, M., Logozzo, F.: Static contract checking with abstract interpretation. In: Beckert, B., Marché, C. (eds.) FoVeOOS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6528, pp. 10–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18070-5_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Filliâtre, J.-C., Marché, C.: The Why/Krakatoa/Caduceus platform for deductive program verification. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 173–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hähnle, R., Schaefer, I., Bubel, R.: Reuse in software verification by abstract method calls. In: Bonacina, M.P. (ed.) CADE 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7898, pp. 300–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38574-2_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hutter, D., Autexier, S.: Formal software development in MAYA. In: Hutter, D., Stephan, W. (eds.) Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2605, pp. 407–432. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-32254-2_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacobs, B., Smans, J., Philippaerts, P., Vogels, F., Penninckx, W., Piessens, F.: VeriFast: a powerful, sound, predictable, fast verifier for C and Java. In: Bobaru, M., Havelund, K., Holzmann, G.J., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6617, pp. 41–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20398-5_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kassios, I.T.: Dynamic frames: support for framing, dependencies and sharing without restrictions. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 268–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11813040_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leavens, G.T., Poll, E., Clifton, C., Cheon, Y., Ruby, C., Cok, D., Müller, P., Kiniry, J., Chalin, P., Zimmerman, D.M.: JML reference manual (2009). ftp://ftp.cs.iastate.edu/pub/leavens/JML/jmlrefman.pdf. Draft revision 1.235
  24. 24.
    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). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17511-4_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leino, K.R.M., Wüstholz, V.: Fine-grained caching of verification results. In: Kroening, D., Păsăreanu, C.S. (eds.) CAV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9206, pp. 380–397. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liskov, B., Wing, J.M.: A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16(6), 1811–1841 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meyer, B.: Applying “design by contract”. IEEE Comput. 25(10), 40–51 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Müller, P., et al.: The 1st verified software competition: experience report. In: Butler, M., Schulte, W. (eds.) FM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6664, pp. 154–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reif, W., Stenzel, K.: Reuse of proofs in software verification. In: Shyamasundar, R.K. (ed.) FSTTCS 1993. LNCS, vol. 761, pp. 284–293. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). doi:10.1007/3-540-57529-4_61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reynolds, J.C.: Separation logic: A logic for shared mutable data structures. In: 17th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2002), pp. 55–74. IEEE Computer Society (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schaefer, I., Bettini, L., Bono, V., Damiani, F., Tanzarella, N.: Delta-oriented programming of software product lines. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds.) SPLC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6287, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15579-6_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schaefer, I., Rabiser, R., Clarke, D., Bettini, L., Benavides, D., Botterweck, G., Pathak, A., Trujillo, S., Villela, K.: Software diversity: state of the art and perspectives. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 14(5), 477–495 (2012). doi:10.1007/s10009-012-0253-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schairer, A., Hutter, D.: Proof transformations for evolutionary formal software development. In: Kirchner, H., Ringeissen, C. (eds.) AMAST 2002. LNCS, vol. 2422, pp. 441–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi:10.1007/3-540-45719-4_30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schmitt, P.H., Ulbrich, M., Weiß, B.: Dynamic frames in java dynamic logic. In: Beckert, B., Marché, C. (eds.) FoVeOOS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6528, pp. 138–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18070-5_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Bubel
    • 1
  • Ferruccio Damiani
    • 2
  • Reiner Hähnle
    • 1
  • Einar Broch Johnsen
    • 3
  • Olaf Owe
    • 3
  • Ina Schaefer
    • 4
  • Ingrid Chieh Yu
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorinoTurinItaly
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  4. 4.Institute for Software EngineeringTechnische Universität BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations