Thread-Modular Abstraction Refinement

  • Thomas A. Henzinger
  • Ranjit Jhala
  • Rupak Majumdar
  • Shaz Qadeer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2725)

Abstract

We present an algorithm called Tar (“Thread-modular Abstraction Refinement”) for model checking safety properties of concurrent software. The Tar algorithm uses thread-modular assume-guarantee reasoning to overcome the exponential complexity in the control state of multithreaded programs. Thread modularity means that Tar explores the state space of one thread at a time, making assumptions about how the environment can interfere. The Tar algorithm uses counterexample-guided predicate-abstraction refinement to overcome the usually infinite complexity in the data state of C programs. A successive approximation scheme automatically infers the necessary precision on data variables as well as suitable environment assumptions. The scheme is novel in that transition relations are approximated from above, while at the same time environment assumptions are approximated from below. In our software verification tool Blast we have implemented a fully automatic race checker for multithreaded C programs which is based on the Tar algorithm. This tool has verified a wide variety of commonly used locking idioms, including locking schemes that are not amenable to existing dynamic and static race checkers such as Eraser or Warlock.

Keywords

Hunt Dispatch Aliasing Burrows Havoc 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: Conjoining specifications. ACM TOPLAS 17, 507–534 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A.: Reactive modules. Formal Methods in System Design 15, 7–48 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alur, R., Itai, A., Kurshan, R.P., Yannakakis, M.: Timing verification by successive approximation. Information and Computation 118, 142–157 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: The slam project: debugging system software via static analysis. In: Proc. POPL, pp. 1–3. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boyapati, C., Rinard, M.: A parameterized type system for race-free Java programs. In: Proc. OOPSLA, pp. 56–69 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corbett, J., Dwyer, M., Hatcliff, J., Pasareanu, C., Laubach, R.S., Zheng, H.: Bandera: extracting finite-state models from Java source code. In: Proc. ICSE, pp. 439–448. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flanagan, C., Freund, S.N.: Detecting race conditions in large programs. In: Proc. PASTE, pp. 90–96. ACM, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flanagan, C., Freund, S.N., Qadeer, S.: Thread-modular verification for shared-memory programs. In: Le Métayer, D. (ed.) ESOP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2305, pp. 262–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flanagan, C., Qadeer, S.: Thread-modular model checking. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 213–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flanagan, C., Qadeer, S., Seshia, S.A.: A modular checker for multithreaded programs. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 180–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Graf, S., Saïdi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with Pvs. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Havelund, K., Pressburger, T.: Model checking Java programs using Java Pathfinder. Software Tools for Technology Transfer 2, 72–84 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Lazy abstraction. In: Proc. POPL, pp. 58–70. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The spin model checker. IEEE TSE 23, 279–295 (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holzmann, G.J.: Logic verification of ANSI-C code with spin. In: Havelund, K., Penix, J., Visser, W. (eds.) SPIN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1885, pp. 131–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones, C.B.: Tentative steps toward a development method for interfering programs. ACM TOPLAS 5, 596–619 (1983)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Owicki, S., Gries, D.: An axiomatic proof technique for parallel programs. Acta Informatica 6, 319–340 (1976)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Savage, S., Burrows, M., Nelson, C.G., Sobalvarro, P., Anderson, T.: Eraser: a dynamic data race detector for multithreaded programs. ACM TOCS 15, 391–411 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sterling, N.: Warlock: a static data race analysis tool. In: Proc. USENIX Technical Conference, pp. 97–106 (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yahav, E.: Verifying safety properties of concurrent Java programs using threevalued logic. In: Proc. POPL, pp. 27–40. ACM, New York (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas A. Henzinger
    • 1
  • Ranjit Jhala
    • 1
  • Rupak Majumdar
    • 1
  • Shaz Qadeer
    • 2
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaBerkeley
  2. 2.Microsoft ResearchRedmond

Personalised recommendations