Advertisement

A Model Checking Language for Concurrent Value-Passing Systems

  • Radu Mateescu
  • Damien Thivolle
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5014)

Abstract

Modal μ-calculus is an expressive specification formalism for temporal properties of concurrent programs represented as Labeled Transition Systems (Ltss). However, its practical use is hampered by the complexity of the formulas, which makes the specification task difficult and error-prone. In this paper, we propose Mcl (Model Checking Language), an enhancement of modal μ-calculus with high-level operators aimed at improving expressiveness and conciseness of formulas. The main Mcl ingredients are parameterized fixed points, action patterns extracting data values from Lts actions, modalities on transition sequences described using extended regular expressions and programming language constructs, and an infinite looping operator specifying fairness. We also present a method for on-the-fly model checking of Mcl formulas on finite Ltss, based on the local resolution of boolean equation systems, which has a linear-time complexity for alternation-free and fairness formulas. Mcl is supported by the Evaluator 4.0 model checker developed within the Cadp verification toolbox.

Keywords

Model Check Temporal Logic Loop Operator Regular Expression Transition Sequence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Andersen, H.R.: Model Checking and Boolean Graphs. TCS 126(1), 3–30 (1994)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ANSI. Small Computer System Interface-2. Standard X3.131-1994Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armoni, R., Fix, L., Flaisher, A., et al.: The ForSpec Temporal Logic: A New Temporal Property-Specification Language. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) ETAPS 2002 and TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, pp. 211–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arts, T., Benac Earle, C., Derrick, J.: Development of a Verified Erlang Program for Resource Locking. STTT 5(2–2), 205–220 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barringer, H., Goldberg, A., Havelund, K., Sen, K.: Rule-Based Runtime Verification. In: Steffen, B., Levi, G. (eds.) VMCAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 2937, pp. 44–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beer, I., Ben-David, S., Eisner, C., Fisman, D., Gringauze, A., Rodeh, Y.: The Temporal Logic Sugar. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.) CAV 2001. LNCS, vol. 2102, pp. 363–367. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cleaveland, R., Steffen, B.: A Linear-Time Model-Checking Algorithm for the Alternation-Free Modal Mu-Calculus. FMSD 2(2), 121–147 (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dam, M.: Model Checking Mobile Processes (Full version). Research Report RR 94:1, Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista, Sweden (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Nicola, R., Vaandrager, F.W.: Action versus State Based Logics for Transition Systems. In: LITP 1990. Lncs, vol. 469, pp. 407–419 (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in Property Specifications for Finite-State Verification. In: ICSE 1999, pp. 411–420 (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Emerson, E.A., Halpern, J.Y.: Sometimes and Not Never Revisited: On Branching versus Linear Time Temporal Logic. J. ACM 33(1), 151–178 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Emerson, E.A., Lei, C.-L.: Efficient Model Checking in Fragments of the Propositional Mu-Calculus. In: LICS 1986, pp. 267–278 (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischer, M.J., Ladner, R.E.: Propositional Dynamic Logic of Regular Programs. JCSS 18(2), 194–211 (1979)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garavel, H.: OPEN/CAESAR: An Open Software Architecture for Verification, Simulation, and Testing. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) ETAPS 1998 and TACAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1384, pp. 68–84. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garavel, H., Hermanns, H.: On Combining Functional Verification and Performance Evaluation Using CADP. In: Eriksson, L.-H., Lindsay, P.A. (eds.) FME 2002. LNCS, vol. 2391, pp. 410–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: CADP 2006: A Toolbox for the Construction and Analysis of Distributed Processes. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 158–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Groote, J.F., Willemse, T.A.C.: Parameterised Boolean Equation Systems. TCS 343, 332–369 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Groote, J.F., Mateescu, R.: Verification of Temporal Properties of Processes in a Setting with Data. In: Haeberer, A.M. (ed.) AMAST 1998. LNCS, vol. 1548, pp. 74–90. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Halpern, J.Y., Reif, J.H.: The Propositional Dynamic Logic of Deterministic, Wellstructured Programs. TCS 27(1–2), 127–165 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hamaguchi, K., Hiraishi, H., Yajima, S.: Branching Time Regular Temporal Logic for Model Checking with Linear Time Complexity. In: CAV 1990. Lncs, vol. 531 (1990)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holzmann, G.: The SPIN Model Checker. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    IEEE. PSL: Property Specification Language. Std. P1850, IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ISO/IEC. LOTOS — A Formal Description Technique Based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour. Int. Std. 8807, ISO — OSI, Genève (1989)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Joubert, C., Mateescu, R.: Distributed On-the-Fly Model Checking and Test Case Generation. In: Valmari, A. (ed.) SPIN 2006. LNCS, vol. 3925, pp. 126–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kozen, D.: Results on the Propositional μ-calculus. TCS 27, 333–354 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Larsen, K.G.: Proof Systems for Hennessy-Milner logic with Recursion. In: Dauchet, M., Nivat, M. (eds.) CAAP 1988. LNCS, vol. 299, pp. 215–230. Springer, Heidelberg (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mader, A.: Verification of Modal Properties Using Boolean Equation Systems. In: VERSAL 8, Bertz Verlag, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mateescu, R.: Local Model-Checking of an Alternation-Free Value-Based Modal Mu-Calculus. In: VMCAI 1998. University Ca’Foscari of Venice (1998)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mateescu, R.: Efficient Diagnostic Generation for Boolean Equation Systems. In: Schwartzbach, M.I., Graf, S. (eds.) ETAPS 2000 and TACAS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1785, pp. 251–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mateescu, R.: CÆSAR_SOLVE: A Generic Library for On-the-Fly Resolution of Alternation-Free Boolean Equation Systems. STTT 8(1), 37–56 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mateescu, R., Sighireanu, M.: Efficient On-the-Fly Model-Checking for Regular Alternation-Free Mu-Calculus. SCP 46(3), 255–281 (2003)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pnueli, A.: A Temporal Logic of Concurrent Programs. TCS 13, 45–60 (1981)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Queille, J.-P., Sifakis, J.: Fairness and Related Properties in Transition Systems — A Temporal Logic to Deal with Fairness. Acta Informatica 19, 195–220 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rathke, J., Hennessy, M.: Local Model Checking for a Value-Based Modal μ-calculus. Report 5/96, Univ. of Sussex (1996)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Salaün, G., Serwe, W., Thonnart, Y., Vivet, P.: Formal Verification of CHP Specifications with CADP — Illustration on an Asynchronous Network-on-Chip. In: ASYNC 2007, pp. 73–82. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stirling, C.: Modal and Temporal Properties of Processes. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Streett, R.: Propositional Dynamic Logic of Looping and Converse. Information and Control 54, 121–141 (1982)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tarjan, R.E.: Depth First Search and Linear Graph Algorithms. SIAM J. of Computing 1(2), 146–160 (1972)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Thomas, W.: Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency. Lncs, vol. 354Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vergauwen, B., Lewi, J.: A Linear Algorithm for Solving Fixed-Point Equations on Transition Systems. In: Raoult, J.-C. (ed.) CAAP 1992. LNCS, vol. 581, pp. 322–341. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wolper, P.: A Translation from Full Branching Time Temporal Logic to One Letter Propositional Dynamic Logic with Looping. Unpublished manuscript (1982)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wolper, P.: Temporal Logic Can Be More Expressive. Information and Control 56(1/2), 72–99 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Radu Mateescu
    • 1
  • Damien Thivolle
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA Rhône-Alpes / VASYMontbonnotFrance

Personalised recommendations