Advertisement

Tressa: Claiming the Future

  • Ali Sezgin
  • Serdar Tasiran
  • Shaz Qadeer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6217)

Abstract

Unlike sequential programs, concurrent programs have to account for interference on shared variables. Static verification of a desired property for such programs crucially depends on precisely asserting the conditions for interference. In a static proof system, in addition to program variables, auxiliary (history) variables summarizing the past of the program execution are used in these assertions. Capable of expressing reachability only, assertions (and history variables) are not as useful in the proofs of programs using optimistic concurrency. Pessimistic implementations which allow access to shared data only after synchronization (e.g. locks) guarantee exclusivity; optimistic concurrency implementations which check for interference after shared data is accessed abandon exclusivity in favor of performance.

In this paper, we propose a new construct, tressa, to express properties, including interference, about the future of an execution. A tressa claim states a condition for reverse reachability from an end state of the program, much like an assert claim states a condition for forward reachability from the initial state of the program. As assertions employ history variables, tressa claims employ prophecy variables, originally introduced for refinement proofs. Being the temporal dual of history variables, prophecy variables summarize the future of the program execution. We present the proof rules and the notion of correctness of a program for two-way reasoning in a static setting: forward in time for assert claims, backward in time for tressa claims. We have incorporated our proof rules into the QED verifier and have used our implementation to verify a small but sophisticated algorithm. Our experience shows that the proof steps and annotations follow closely the intuition of the programmer, making the proof itself a natural extension of implementation.

Keywords

Atomic Statement Global Variable Proof System History Variable Program Execution 
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.
    Elmas, T., Qadeer, S., Tasiran, S.: A calculus of atomic actions. In: POPL 2009, pp. 2–15. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lipton, R.J.: Reduction: a method of proving properties of parallel programs. Commun. ACM 18(12), 717–721 (1975)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Larus, J.R., Rajwar, R.: Transactional Memory. Morgan & Claypool (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ashcroft, E.A.: Proving assertions about parallel programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 10(1), 110–135 (1975)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Owicki, S., Gries, D.: Verifying properties of parallel programs: an axiomatic approach. Commun. ACM 19(5), 279–285 (1976)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, L., Stoller, S.D.: Static analysis for programs with non-blocking synchronization. In: PPoPP 2005. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Hearn, P.W.: Resources, concurrency, and local reasoning. Theor. Comput. Sci. 375(1-3), 271–307 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flanagan, C., Qadeer, S.: A type and effect system for atomicity. SIGPLAN Not. 38(5), 338–349 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freund, S.N., Qadeer, S.: Checking concise specifications for multithreaded software. Journal of Object Technology 3 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freund, S.N., Qadeer, S., Flanagan, C.: Exploiting purity for atomicity. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31(4), 275–291 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: The existence of refinement mappings. Theor. Comput. Sci. 82(2), 253–284 (1991)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hesselink, W.H.: Simulation refinement for concurrency verification. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 214, 3–23 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kesten, Y., Pnueli, A., Shahar, E., Zuck, L.D.: Network invariants in action. In: Brim, L., Jančar, P., Křetínský, M., Kucera, A. (eds.) CONCUR 2002. LNCS, vol. 2421, pp. 101–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Colvin, R., Groves, L., Luchangco, V., Moir, M.: Formal verification of a lazy concurrent list-based set algorithm. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 475–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lynch, N.A., Tuttle, M.R.: An introduction to input/output automata. CWI Quarterly 2, 219–246 (1989)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marcus, M., Pnueli, A.: Using ghost variables to prove refinement. In: Nivat, M., Wirsing, M. (eds.) AMAST 1996. LNCS, vol. 1101, pp. 226–240. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Sezgin
    • 1
  • Serdar Tasiran
    • 1
  • Shaz Qadeer
    • 2
  1. 1.Koc UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Microsoft ResearchRedmondUSA

Personalised recommendations