Advertisement

Design and Verification of Restart-Robust Industrial Control Software

  • Dimitri BohlenderEmail author
  • Stefan Kowalewski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11023)

Abstract

Many systems in automated production and industrial automation operate in safety-critical environments and must meet rigorous safety requirements. To enable safe operation even in the case of a power outage, the PLCs driving these systems feature battery-backed memory areas to prevent loss of data and allow for implementation of resumption strategies. However it is up to an automation engineer to decide which variables to retain, and errors that only occur after program restart are a common problem in industrial control code.

We present approaches to both verifying the absence of such errors and synthesising safe configurations of retain variables with off-the-shelf tooling. The synthesis problem reduces to solving particular exists-forall quantified Horn clauses, for what we also propose a more efficient counterexample-guided procedure.

Evaluation of our prototypical implementation on examples from the PLCopen Safety library shows the techniques’ strengths and limitations.

Keywords

Software verification Parameter synthesis Restart-robustness Integration of formal methods Programmable logic controllers 

References

  1. 1.
    Barnett, M., Leino, K.R.M.: Weakest-precondition of unstructured programs. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT Workshop on Program Analysis For Software Tools and Engineering, PASTE 2005, Lisbon, Portugal, 5–6 September 2005, pp. 82–87 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batt, G., Page, M., Cantone, I., Goessler, G., Monteiro, P.T., de Jong, H.: Efficient parameter search for qualitative models of regulatory networks using symbolic model checking. Bioinformatics 26(18), i603–i610 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beckert, B., Ulbrich, M., Vogel-Heuser, B., Weigl, A.: Regression verification for programmable logic controller software. In: Butler, M., Conchon, S., Zaïdi, F. (eds.) ICFEM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9407, pp. 234–251. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25423-4_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beyer, D., Cimatti, A., Griggio, A., Keremoglu, M.E., Sebastiani, R.: Software model checking via large-block encoding. In: Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD 2009, Austin, Texas, USA, 15–18 November 2009, pp. 25–32 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biallas, S., Brauer, J., Kowalewski, S.: Arcade.PLC: a verification platform for programmable logic controllers. In: IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2012, Essen, Germany, 3–7 September 2012, pp. 338–341 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49059-0_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bjørner, N., Gurfinkel, A., McMillan, K.L., Rybalchenko, A.: Horn clause solvers for program verification. In: Beklemishev, L.D., Blass, A., Dershowitz, N., Finkbeiner, B., Schulte, W. (eds.) Fields of Logic and Computation II. LNCS, vol. 9300, pp. 24–51. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23534-9_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bohlender, D., Hamm, D., Kowalewski, S.: Cycle-bounded model checking of PLC software via dynamic large-block encoding. In: SAC 2018: Symposium on Applied Computing, Pau, France, 9–13 April 2018 (2018, to appear)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bohlender, D., Kowalewski, S.: Compositional verification of PLC software using horn clauses and mode abstraction. In: 14th International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, WODES 2018, Sorrento Coast, Italy, 30 May–June 1 2018 (2018, to appear)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bohlender, D., Simon, H., Kowalewski, S.: Symbolic verification of PLC safety-applications based on PLCopen automata. In: MBMV 2016, pp. 33–45 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bradley, A.R.: SAT-based model checking without unrolling. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D. (eds.) VMCAI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 70–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18275-4_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cavada, R., et al.: The nuXmv symbolic model checker. In: Biere, A., Bloem, R. (eds.) CAV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8559, pp. 334–342. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cimatti, A., Griggio, A., Mover, S., Tonetta, S.: Parameter synthesis with IC3. In: Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD 2013, Portland, OR, USA, 20–23 October 2013, pp. 165–168 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0025774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/10722167_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Darvas, D., Majzik, I., Blanco Viñuela, E.: Formal verification of safety PLC based control software. In: Ábrahám, E., Huisman, M. (eds.) IFM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9681, pp. 508–522. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33693-0_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eén, N., Mishchenko, A., Brayton, R.K.: Efficient implementation of property directed reachability. In: International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD 2011, Austin, TX, USA, 30 October–02 November 2011, pp. 125–134 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: Temporal induction by incremental SAT solving. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 89(4), 543–560 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ge, Y., de Moura, L.: Complete instantiation for quantified formulas in satisfiabiliby modulo theories. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 306–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02658-4_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hauck-Stattelmann, S., Biallas, S., Schlich, B., Kowalewski, S., Jetley, R.: Analyzing the restart behavior of industrial control applications. In: Bjørner, N., de Boer, F. (eds.) FM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9109, pp. 585–588. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19249-9_38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoder, K., Bjørner, N.: Generalized property directed reachability. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 157–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31612-8_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Komuravelli, A., Bjørner, N., Gurfinkel, A., McMillan, K.L.: Compositional verification of procedural programs using horn clauses over integers and arrays. In: FMCAD 2015, pp. 89–96 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Komuravelli, A., Gurfinkel, A., Chaki, S., Clarke, E.M.: Automatic abstraction in SMT-based unbounded software model checking. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 846–862. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koskinen, E., Yang, J.: Reducing crash recoverability to reachability. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2016, St. Petersburg, FL, USA, 20–22 January 2016, pp. 97–108 (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kroening, D., Strichman, O.: Decision Procedures - An Algorithmic Point of View. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74105-3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Temporal verification of reactive systems - safety. In: Broy, M. (ed.) Program Design Calculi, vol. 118, pp. 287–323. Springer, Heidelberg (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02880-3_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McMillan, K.L.: Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moon, I.: Modeling programmable logic controllers for logic verification. IEEE Control Syst. 14(2), 53–59 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Moura, L.M., 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
  30. 30.
    Ovatman, T., Aral, A., Polat, D., Ünver, A.O.: An overview of model checking practices on verification of PLC software. Softw. Syst. Model. 15(4), 937–960 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    PLCopen TC5: Safety Software Technical Specification, Version 1.0, Part 1: Concepts and Function Blocks. PLCopen, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    PLCopen TC5: Safety Software Technical Specification, Version 1.01, Part 2: User Examples. PLCopen, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wintersteiger, C.M., Hamadi, Y., de Moura, L.M.: Efficiently solving quantified bit-vector formulas. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 42(1), 3–23 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Embedded SoftwareRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations