Towards Verifying Correctness of Wireless Sensor Network Applications Using Insense and Spin

  • Oliver Sharma
  • Jonathan Lewis
  • Alice Miller
  • Al Dearle
  • Dharini Balasubramaniam
  • Ron Morrison
  • Joe Sventek
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5578)

Abstract

The design and implementation of wireless sensor network applications often require domain experts, who may lack expertise in software engineering, to produce resource-constrained, concurrent, real-time software without the support of high-level software engineering facilities. The Insense language aims to address this mismatch by allowing the complexities of synchronisation, memory management and event-driven programming to be borne by the language implementation rather than by the programmer. The main contribution of this paper is an initial step towards verifying the correctness of WSN applications with a focus on concurrency. We model part of the synchronisation mechanism of the Insense language implementation using Promela constructs and verify its correctness using Spin. We demonstrate how a previously published version of the mechanism is shown to be incorrect by Spin, and give complete verification results for the revised mechanism.

Keywords

Concurrency Distributed systems Formal Modelling Wireless Sensor Networks 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Akyildiz, I., Su, W., Sankarasubramaniam, Y., Cyirici, E.: Wireless sensor networks: A survey. Computer Networks 38(4), 393–422 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apt, K.R., Kozen, D.C.: Limits for automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems. Information Processing Letters 22, 307–309 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balasubramaniam, D., Dearle, A., Morrison, R.: A composition-based approach to the construction and dynamic reconfiguration of wireless sensor network applications. In: Pautasso, C., Tanter, É. (eds.) SC 2008. LNCS, vol. 4954, pp. 206–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ballarini, P., Miller, A.: Model checking medium access control for sensor networks. In: Proc. of the 2nd Int’l. Symp. on leveraging applications of formal methods, pp. 255–262. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bosnacki, D., Dams, D., Holenderski, L.: Symmetric Spin. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 4(1), 65–80 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruneton, É., Coupaye, T., Leclercq, M., Quéma, V., Stefani, J.-B.: The fractal component model and its support in Java. Software Practice and Experience 36(11-12), 1257–1284 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E., Emerson, E.: Synthesis of synchronization skeletons for branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, E., Emerson, E., Sistla, A.P.: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 8(2), 244–263 (1986)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dearle, A., Balasubramaniam, D., Lewis, J., Morrison, R.: A component-based model and language for wireless sensor network applications. In: Proc. of the 32nd Int’l Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC 2008), pp. 1303–1308. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Donaldson, A.F., Miller, A.: A computational group theoretic symmetry reduction package for the SPIN model checker. In: Johnson, M., Vene, V. (eds.) AMAST 2006. LNCS, vol. 4019, pp. 374–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunkels, A., Grönvall, B., Voigt, T.: Contiki – a lightweight and flexible operating system for tiny networked sensors. In: Proc. 1st Workshop on Embedded Networked Sensors (EmNets-I). IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gay, D., Levis, P., Culler, D.: Software design patterns for TinyOS. Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems 6(4), 22 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holzmann, G.: The SPIN model checker: primer and reference manual. Addison Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khan, A., Jenkins, L.: Undersea wireless sensor network for ocean pollution prevention. In: Proc. 3rd Int’l. Conference on Communication Systems Software and Middleware (COMSWARE 2008), pp. 2–8. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kurshan, R.P., McMillan, K.L.: A structural induction theorem for processes. In: Proceedings of the eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distrubuted Computing, pp. 239–247. ACM Press, New York (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Sproston, J.: Probabilistic model checking of the IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network protocol. In: Hermanns, H., Segala, R. (eds.) PROBMIV 2002, PAPM-PROBMIV 2002, and PAPM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2399, pp. 169–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miller, A., Calder, M., Donaldson, A.F.: A template-based approach for the generation of abstractable and reducible models of featured networks. Computer Networks 51(2), 439–455 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miller, A., Donaldson, A., Calder, M.: Symmetry in temporal logic model checking. Computing Surveys 36(3) (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Skordylis, A., Guitton, A., Trigoni, N.: Correlation-based data dissemination in traffic monitoring sensor networks. In: Proc. 2nd int’l. conference on emerging networking experiments and Technoligies (CoNext 2006), p. 42 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tobarra, L., Cazorla, D., Cuatero, F., Diaz, G., Cambronero, E.: Model checking wirelss sensor network security protocols: TinySec + LEAP. In: Wireless Sensor and Actor Networks. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, vol. 248, pp. 95–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Venkatraman, S., Long, J., Pister, K., Carmena, J.: Wireless inertial sensors for monitoring animal behaviour. In: Proc. 29th Int’l. Conference on Engineering in Medicine and Biology (EMBS 2007), pp. 378–381. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Werner-Allen, G., Lorincz, K., Welsh, M., Marcillo, O., Johnson, J., Ruiz, M., Lees, J.: Deploying a wireless sensor network on an active volcano. IEEE Internet Computing 10(2), 18–25 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xie, F., Song, X., Chung, H., Nandi, R.: Translation-based co-verification. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Codesign, Verona, Italy, pp. 111–120. ACM-IEEE, IEEE Computer Society (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver Sharma
    • 1
  • Jonathan Lewis
    • 2
  • Alice Miller
    • 1
  • Al Dearle
    • 2
  • Dharini Balasubramaniam
    • 2
  • Ron Morrison
    • 2
  • Joe Sventek
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of GlasgowScotland
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of St. AndrewsScotland

Personalised recommendations