Verifying Invariants of Component-Based Systems through Refinement

  • Olga Kouchnarenko
  • Arnaud Lanoix
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3116)

Abstract

In areas like manufacturing, communications, transportation or aerospace, the increasing size and complexity of reactive systems make their verification difficult to handle. Compositional reasoning is a way to master this problem. In this paper, we propose an approach based on a constraint synchronized product to specify and to verify such systems. This approach supports a compositional refinement for both labelled transition systems and their composition. In this framework, we show how to verify local and global invariance properties during a refinement verification. Thus, these properties are preserved through refinement.

The different aspects of our work are illustrated on the example of a communication protocol between an integrated chip card and a reader interface device.

Keywords

Invariance properties refinement compositional verification synchronized product preservation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.-R.: The B Book. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996) ISBN 0521-496195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrial, J.-R., Mussat, L.: Introducing dynamic constraints in B. In: Bert, D. (ed.) B 1998. LNCS, vol. 1393, pp. 83–128. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alur, R., de Alfaro, L., Grosu, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kang, M., Majumdar, R., Mang, F., Kirsch, C.M., Wang, B.Y.: Mocha: A model checker that exploits design structure. In: 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2001) (May 2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andrade, H.A., Sanders, B.: An approach to compositional model checking. In: International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS 2002) Workshops: FMPPTA 2002, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, April 2002, IEEE, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arnold, A.: Systèmes de transitions finis et sémantique des processus communicants. Collection Etudes et Recherches en Informatiques. Masson, Paris (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arnold, A., Nivat, M.: Comportements de processus. In: Actes du Colloque AFCET - Les Mathématiques de l’Informatique, pp. 35–68 (1982)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bellegarde, F., Darlot, C., Julliand, J., Kouchnarenko, O.: Reformulation: a way to combine dynamic properties and B refinement. In: Oliveira, J.N., Zave, P. (eds.) FME 2001. LNCS, vol. 2021, pp. 2–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellegarde, F., Julliand, J., Kouchnarenko, O.: Ready-simulation is not ready to express a modular refinement relation. In: Maibaum, T. (ed.) FASE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1783, pp. 266–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cobleigh, J.-M., Giannakopoulou, D., Pasareanu, C.: Learning assumptions for compositional verification. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 331–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Darlot, C., Julliand, J., Kouchnarenko, O.: Refinement preserves PLTL properties. In: Bert, D., Bowen, P., King, J. (eds.) ZB 2003. LNCS, vol. 2651, pp. 408–420. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Normalisation Committee. En27816-3. European standard - identification cards - integrated circuit(s) card with contacts - electronic signal and transmission protocols. Technical Report ISO/CEI 7816-3 (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kouchnarenko, O., Lanoix, A.: Refinement and verification of synchronized component-based systems. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 341–358. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kouchnarenko, O., Lanoix, A.: Refinement and verification of synchronized component-based systems. INRIA Research Report 4862 (June 2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kouchnarenko, O., Lanoix, A.: SynCo: a refinement analysis tool for synchronized component-based systems. In: Margaria, T. (ed.) FM 2003 Tool Exhibition Notes, Pisa, Italy, September 2003, pp. 47–51 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lind-Nielsen, J., Andersen, H.R., Hulgaard, H., Behrmann, G., Kristoffersen, K., Larsen, K.G.: Verification of large state/event systems using compositionality and dependency analysis. Formal Methods in System Design 18(1), 5–23 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Masson, P.-A., Mountassir, H., Julliand, J.: Modular verification for a class of PLTL properties. In: Grieskamp, W., Santen, T., Stoddart, B. (eds.) IFM 2000. LNCS, vol. 1945, pp. 398–419. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McMillan, K.L.: A methodology for hardware verification using compositional model-checking. Science of Computer Programming 37, 279–309 (2000)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tsay, Y.-K.: Compositional verification in linear-time temporal logic. In: Tiuryn, J. (ed.) FOSSACS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1784, pp. 344–358. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga Kouchnarenko
    • 1
  • Arnaud Lanoix
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire dInformatique de l’Université de Franche-Comté, FRE CNRS 2661Besançon CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations