Advertisement

Verification of Equivalent-Results Methods

  • K. Rustan M. Leino
  • Peter Müller
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4960)

Abstract

Methods that query the state of a data structure often return identical or equivalent values as long as the data structure does not change. Program verification depends on this fact, but it has been difficult to specify and verify such equivalent-results methods and their callers.

This paper presents an encoding from which one can determine equivalent-results methods to be deterministic modulo a user-defined equivalence relation. It also presents a technique for checking that a query method returns equivalent results and enforcing that the result depends only on a user-defined influence set.

The technique is general, for example it supports user-defined equivalence relations based on Equals methods and it supports query methods that return newly allocated objects. The paper also discusses the implementation of the technique in the context of the Spec# static program verifier.

Keywords

Proof Obligation Source Language Java Modeling Language Path Expression Separation Logic 
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.
    Barnett, M., Chang, B.-Y.E., DeLine, R., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M.: Boogie: A Modular Reusable Verifier for Object-Oriented Programs. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 364–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnett, M., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: The Spec# Programming System: An Overview. In: Barthe, G., Burdy, L., Huisman, M., Lanet, J.-L., Muntean, T. (eds.) CASSIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3362, pp. 49–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barthe, G., D’Argenio, P.R., Rezk, T.: Secure information flow by self-composition. In: Computer Security Foundations (CSFW), pp. 100–114. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burstall, R.M.: Some techniques for proving correctness of programs which alter data structures. Machine Intelligence 7, 23–50 (1972)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chatterjee, S., Lahiri, S.K., Qadeer, S., Rakamarić, Z.: A Reachability Predicate for Analyzing Low-Level Software. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke, D.G., Drossopoulou, S.: Ownership, encapsulation and the disjointness of type and effect. In: OOPSLA. SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 37(11), pp. 292–310. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, D.G., Potter, J.M., Noble, J.: Ownership types for flexible alias protection. In: OOPSLA. SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 33(10), pp. 48–64. ACM Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cok, D.: Reasoning with specifications containing method calls and model fields. Journal of Object Technology 4(8), 77–103 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Darvas, Á., Leino, K.R.M.: Practical Reasoning About Invocations and Implementations of Pure Methods. In: Dwyer, M.B., Lopes, A. (eds.) FASE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4422, pp. 336–351. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Darvas, Á., Müller, P.: Reasoning about method calls in interface specifications. Journal of Object Technology 5(5), 59–85 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    DeLine, R., Leino, K.R.M.: BoogiePL: A typed procedural language for checking object-oriented programs. Technical Report MSR-TR-2005-70, Microsoft Research (March 2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Filliâtre, J.-C.: Why: a multi-language multi-prover verification tool. Research Report 1366, LRI, Université Paris Sud (March 2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobs, B.: A Statically Verifiable Programming Model for Concurrent Object-Oriented Programs. PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kassios, I.T.: Dynamic Frames: Support for Framing, Dependencies and Sharing Without Restrictions. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 268–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiniry, J.R., Cok, D.R.: ESC/Java2: Uniting ESC/Java and JML. In: Barthe, G., Burdy, L., Huisman, M., Lanet, J.-L., Muntean, T. (eds.) CASSIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3362, pp. 108–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leavens, G.T., Baker, A.L., Ruby, C.: JML: A notation for detailed design. In: Behavioral Specifications of Businesses and Systems, pp. 175–188. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leavens, G.T., Cheon, Y., Clifton, C., Ruby, C., Cok, D.R.: How the design of JML accommodates both runtime assertion checking and formal verification. Science of Computer Programming 55(1–3), 185–208 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leavens, G.T., Poll, E., Clifton, C., Cheon, Y., Ruby, C., Cok, D., Müller, P., Kiniry, J.: JML reference manual. Dept. Comp. Sci., Iowa State University (2007), http://www.jmlspecs.org
  19. 19.
    Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P.: Object Invariants in Dynamic Contexts. In: Odersky, M. (ed.) ECOOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3086, pp. 491–516. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: A verifying compiler for a multi-threaded object-oriented language. In: 2006 Marktoberdorf Summer School on Programming Methodology, Springer, Heidelberg (to appear, 2007), research.microsoft.com/~leino/papers.html Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Naumann, D.A.: From Coupling Relations to Mated Invariants for Checking Information Flow. In: Gollmann, D., Meier, J., Sabelfeld, A. (eds.) ESORICS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4189, pp. 279–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Hearn, P.W., Yang, H., Reynolds, J.C.: Separation and information hiding. In: POPL, pp. 268–280 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parkinson, M.J., Bierman, G.M.: Separation logic and abstraction. In: POPL, pp. 247–258. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Poetzsch-Heffter, A., Müller, P.: Logical foundations for typed object-oriented languages. In: Programming Concepts and Methods (PROCOMET), pp. 404–423 (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salcianu, A., Rinard, M.: Purity and Side Effect Analysis for Java Programs. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) VMCAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3385, pp. 199–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stevenson, D.E., Phillips, A.T.: Implementing object equivalence in Java using the template method design pattern. SIGCSE Bulletin 35(1), 278–282 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Rustan M. Leino
    • 1
  • Peter Müller
    • 1
  1. 1.Microsoft Research, Redmond, WAUSA

Personalised recommendations