Advertisement

Toward Property-Driven Abstraction for Heap Manipulating Programs

  • K. L. McMillan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4762)

Abstract

Automated abstraction refinement methods have shown significant promise in analyzing low-level software, such as operating system device drivers, and other control-oriented codes. For example, the SLAM toolkit from Microsoft research [1] has proved effective in finding control errors (such as illegal use of kernel API functions) in real-world device driver codes. SLAM is based on predicate abstraction, using a counterexample-based abstraction refinement heuristic. This gives it the ability to focus the abstraction on state predicates that are relevant to the proof (or falsification) of a given property. This ability allows SLAM and similar tools to scale to real codes of moderate size, albeit only in the case when the property is fairly shallow, in the sense that it requires only a small amount of information about the program’s state to prove it.

Keywords

Device Driver State Predicate Separation Logic Predicate Abstraction Linked List 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: The SLAM project: debugging system software via static analysis. In: POPL, pp. 1–3 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chou, A., Yang, J., Chelf, B., Hallem, S., Engler, D.R.: An empirical study of operating system errors. In: Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 73–88 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Distefano, D., O’Hearn, P.W., Yang, H.: A local shape analysis based on separation logic. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006 and ETAPS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 287–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., McMillan, K.L.: Abstractions from proofs. In: Neil, D., Jones, N.D., Leroy, X. (eds.) POPL, pp. 232–244. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McMillan, K.L.: An interpolating theorem prover. Theor. Comput. Sci. 345(1), 101–121 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nanevski, A., Magill, S., Clarke, E., Lee, P.: Inferring invariants in separation logic for imperative list-processing programs. In: Workshop on Semantics, Program Analysis, and Computing Environments for Memory Management (SPACE) (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sagiv, S., Reps, T.W., Wilhelm, R.: Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic. In: POPL, pp. 105–118 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sullivan, M., Chillarege, R.: Software defects and their impact on system availability - a study of field failures in operating systems. In: 21st Int. Symp. on Fault-Tolerant Computing (FTCS-21), pp. 2–9 (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. L. McMillan
    • 1
  1. 1.Cadence Berkeley Labs 

Personalised recommendations