VeriCool: An Automatic Verifier for a Concurrent Object-Oriented Language

  • Jan Smans
  • Bart Jacobs
  • Frank Piessens
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5051)

Abstract

Reasoning about object-oriented programs is hard, due to aliasing, dynamic binding and the need for data abstraction and framing. Reasoning about concurrent object-oriented programs is even harder, since in general interference by other threads has to be taken into account at each program point.

In this paper, we propose an approach to the automatic verification of concurrent Java-like programs. The cornerstone of the approach is a programming model, a set of rules, which limits thread inference to synchronization points such that one can reason sequentially about most code. In particular, programs conforming to the programming model are guaranteed to be data race free. Compared to previous incarnations of the programming model, our approach is more flexible in describing the set of memory locations protected by an object’s lock. In addition, we combine the model with an approach for data abstraction and framing based on dynamic frames. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper combining dynamic frames and concurrency.

We implemented the approach in a tool, called VeriCool, and used it to verify several small concurrent programs.

References

  1. 1.
    Gosling, J., Joy, B., Steele, G., Bracha, G.: The java language specification, 3rd edn. (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants. In: SAVCBS (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M., Piessens, F., Schulte, W.: Safe concurrency for aggregate objects with invariants. In: SEFM (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobs, B., Smans, J., Piessens, F., Schulte, W.: A statically verifiable programming model for concurrent object-oriented programs. In: ICFEM (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smans, J., Jacobs, B., Piessens, F., Schulte, W.: An automatic verifier for java-like programs based on dynamic frames (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kassios, Y.: A Theory of Object Oriented Refinement. PhD thesis, University of Toronto (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Hobor, A., Appel, A.W., Nardelli, F.Z.: Oracle semantics for concurrent separation logic. In: ESOP (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Hearn, P.W.: Resources, concurrency and local reasoning. Theoretical Computer Science 375(1-3) (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gotsman, A., Berdine, J., Cook, B., Rinetzky, N., Sagiv, M.: Local reasoning for storable locks and threads. In: APLAS (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haack, C., Hurlin, C.: Separation logic contracts for a java-like language with fork/join. Technical Report 6430, INRIA (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeLine, R., Leino, K.R.M.: Boogiepl: A typed procedural language for checking object-oriented programs. Technical Report MSR-TR-, -70 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: A verifying compiler for a multi-threaded object-oriented language. In: Marktoberdorf Summer School Lecture Notes (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flanagan, C., Leino, K.R.M., Lillibridge, M., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B., Stata, R.: Extended static checking for java. In: PLDI (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leino, K.R.M., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B.: Esc/java user’s manual. Technical Report SRC-TN-2000-002, Compaq Research Center (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Calcagno, C., Parkinson, M., Vafeiadis, V.: Modular safety checking for fine-grained concurrency. In: SAS (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berdine, J., Calcagno, C., O’Hearn, P.W.: Smallfoot: Modular automatic assertion checking with separation logic. In: FMCO (2005) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ábrahám Mumm, E., de Boer, F.S., de Roever, W.P., Steffen, M.: Verification for java’s reentrant multithreading concept. In: Nielsen, M., Engberg, U. (eds.) ETAPS 2002 and FOSSACS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2303, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boyapati, C., Lee, R., Rinard, M.: Ownership types for safe programming: Preventing data races and deadlocks. In: OOPSLA (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoare, C.: Monitors: An operating system structuring concept. cacm 17(10) (1974)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Smans
    • 1
  • Bart Jacobs
    • 1
  • Frank Piessens
    • 1
  1. 1.Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations