Instrumenting C Programs with Nested Word Monitors

  • Swarat Chaudhuri
  • Rajeev Alur
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4595)


In classical automata-theoretic model checking of safety properties [6], a system model generates a language L of words modeling system executions, and verification involves checking if L ∩ L′ = ∅, L′ being the language of words deemed “unsafe” by the specification. This view is also used in recent program analyzers like Blast [5] and Slam [2], where a specification is a word automaton (or monitor) with finite-state control-flow that accepts all “unsafe” program executions. Typical analysis constructs the “product” of a program and a monitor, in effect instrumenting the program with extra commands and assertions, so that the input program fails its specification if and only if the product program fails an assertion. The latter is then checked for possible assertion failures. Monitors also find use in testing and runtime verification, where we try finding assertion violations in the product program at runtime.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Madhusudan, P.: Adding nested structure to words. Developments in Language Theory, 1–13 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ball, T., Rajamani, S.: The slam toolkit. In: Computer Aided Verification, 13th International Conference (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyer, D., Chlipala, A.J., Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: The blast query language for software verification. In: Giacobazzi, R. (ed.) SAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3148, pp. 2–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burdy, L., Cheon, Y., Cok, D., Ernst, M., Kiniry, J., Leavens, G.T., Leino, R., Poll, E.: An overview of JML tools and applications. In: Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems, pp. 75–89 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Necula, G.C., Sutre, G., Weimer, W.: Temporal-safety proofs for systems code. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 526–538. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The model checker SPIN. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23(5), 279–295 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Swarat Chaudhuri
    • 1
  • Rajeev Alur
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Pennsylvania 

Personalised recommendations