Advertisement

Runtime Verification of Safety-Progress Properties

  • Yliès Falcone
  • Jean-Claude Fernandez
  • Laurent Mounier
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5779)

Abstract

The underlying property, its definition and representation play a major role when monitoring a system. Having a suitable and convenient framework to express properties is thus a concern for runtime analysis. It is desirable to delineate in this framework the spaces of properties for which runtime verification approaches can be applied to.

This paper presents a unified view of runtime verification and enforcement of properties in the safety-progress classification. Firstly, we characterize the set of properties which can be verified (monitorable properties) and enforced (enforceable properties) at runtime. We propose in particular an alternative definition of “property monitoring” to the one classically used in this context. Secondly, for the delineated spaces of properties, we obtain specialized verification and enforcement monitors.

Keywords

Response Property Safety Property Execution Sequence Reactivity Property Runtime Verification 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Runtime Verification (2001-2009), http://www.runtime-verification.org
  2. 2.
    Pnueli, A., Zaks, A.: PSL Model Checking and Run-Time Verification Via Testers. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 573–586. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Comparing LTL semantics for runtime verification. Journal of Logic and Computation (2008) (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Runtime verification for LTL and TLTL. Technical Report TUM-I0724, Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Havelund, K., Goldberg, A.: Verify your runs. In: Meyer, B., Woodcock, J. (eds.) VSTTE 2005. LNCS, vol. 4171, pp. 374–383. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roşu, G., Chen, F., Ball, T.: Synthesizing monitors for safety properties – this time with calls and returns. In: Leucker, M. (ed.) RV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5289, pp. 51–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Havelund, K., Rosu, G.: Efficient monitoring of safety properties. Software Tools and Technology Transfer (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    d’Amorim, M., Roşu, G.: Efficient monitoring of ω-languages. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 364–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schneider, F.B.: Enforceable security policies. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 3, 30–50 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamlen, K.W., Morrisett, G., Schneider, F.B.: Computability classes for enforcement mechanisms. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 28, 175–205 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Viswanathan, M.: Foundations for the run-time analysis of software systems. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ligatti, J., Bauer, L., Walker, D.: Run-time enforcement of nonsafety policies. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 12, 1–41 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: A hierarchy of temporal properties, invited paper 1989. In: PODC 1990: Proceedings of the ninth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing, pp. 377–410. ACM, New York (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chang, E.Y., Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Characterization of temporal property classes. In: Kuich, W. (ed.) ICALP 1992. LNCS, vol. 623, pp. 474–486. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J.C., Mounier, L.: Synthesizing Enforcement Monitors wrt. the Safety-Progress Classification of Properties. In: Sekar, R., Pujari, A.K. (eds.) ICISS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5352, pp. 41–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J.C., Mounier, L.: Enforcement Monitoring wrt. the Safety-Progress Classification of Properties. In: SAC 2009: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 593–600. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J.C., Mounier, L.: Runtime Verification of Safety-Progress Properties. Technical Report TR-2009-6, Verimag Research Report (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Model checking of safety properties. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 19, 291–314 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lamport, L.: Proving the correctness of multiprocess programs. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 3, 125–143 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alpern, B., Schneider, F.B.: Defining liveness. Technical report, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA (1984)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ligatti, J., Bauer, L., Walker, D.: Enforcing Non-safety Security Policies with Program Monitors. In: de di Vimercati, S.C., Syverson, P.F., Gollmann, D. (eds.) ESORICS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3679, pp. 355–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chen, F., Roşu, G.: MOP: An Efficient and Generic Runtime Verification Framework. In: Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications(OOPSLA 2007), pp. 569–588. ACM press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: A brief account of runtime verification. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 78, 293–303 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martinell, F., Matteucci, I.: Through modeling to synthesis of security automata. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 179, 31–46 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Matteucci, I.: Automated synthesis of enforcing mechanisms for security properties in a timed setting. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 186, 101–120 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Streett, R.S.: Propositional dynamic logic of looping and converse. In: STOC 1981: Proceedings of the thirteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 375–383. ACM, New York (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J.C., Mounier, L.: Specifying Properties for Runtime Verification in the Safety-Progress Classification. Technical Report TR-2009-5, Verimag Research Report (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tarjan, R.: Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing 1, 146–160 (1972)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yliès Falcone
    • 1
  • Jean-Claude Fernandez
    • 1
  • Laurent Mounier
    • 1
  1. 1.VERIMAG, Université Grenoble IFrance

Personalised recommendations