The Theory and Practice of SALT

  • Andreas Bauer
  • Martin Leucker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6617)

Abstract

Salt is a general purpose specification and assertion language developed for creating concise temporal specifications to be used in industrial verification environments. It incorporates ideas of existing approaches, such as PSL or Specification Patterns, in that it provides operators to express scopes and exceptions, as well as support for a subset of regular expressions. On the one hand side, Salt exceeds specific features of these approaches, for example, in that it allows the nesting of scopes and supports the specification of real-time properties. On the other hand, Salt is fully translatable to LTL, if no real-time operators are used, and to TLTL (also known as state-clock logic), if real-time operators appear in a specification. The latter is needed in particular for verification tasks to do with reactive systems imposing strict execution times and deadlines. Salt’s semantics is defined in terms of a translation to temporal (real-time) logic, and a compiler is freely available from the project web site, including an interactive web interface to test drive the compiler. This tutorial paper details on the theoretical foundations of Salt as well as its practical use in applications such as model checking and runtime verification.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Streit, J.: SALT—Structured Assertion Language for Temporal Logic. In: Liu, Z., He, J. (eds.) ICFEM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4260, pp. 757–775. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proc. 18th IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), Providence, Rhode Island, pp. 46–57. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1977)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Raskin, J.-F., Schobbens, P.-Y.: State clock logic: A decidable real-time logic. In: Maler, O. (ed.) HART 1997. LNCS, vol. 1201, pp. 33–47. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Souza, D.: A logical characterisation of event clock automata. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science 14(4), 625–639 (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kamp, J.A.W.: Tense Logic and the Theory of Linear Order. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles (1968)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McMillan, K.L.: The SMV system, symbolic model checking - an approach. Technical Report CMU-CS-92-131, Carnegie Mellon University (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The model checker Spin. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 23, 279–295 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: Proc. 21st Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 411–420. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corbett, J.C., Dwyer, M.B., Hatcliff, J., Laubach, S., Pasareanu, C.S., Robby, Zheng, H.: Bandera: Extracting finite-state models from Java source code. In: Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), IEEE, Los Alamitos (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Accellera Property Specification Language. Reference Manual 1.1 (April 2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eisner, C., Fisman, D.: A Practical Introduction to PSL (Series on Integrated Circuits and Systems). Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gabbay, D., Pnueli, A., Shelah, S., Stavi, J.: On the temporal analysis of fairness. In: Proc. 7th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 163–173. ACM, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Markey, N.: Temporal logic with past is exponentially more succinct, concurrency column. Bulletin of the EATCS 79, 122–128 (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lichtenstein, O., Pnueli, A., Zuck, L.D.: The glory of the past. In: Proc. Conference on Logic of Programs, pp. 196–218. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Temporal Verification of Reactive Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fix, L.: Fifteen years of formal property verification in intel. In: Grumberg, O., Veith, H. (eds.) 25 Years of Model Checking, pp. 139–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ashenden, P.J.: The Designer’s Guide to VHDL, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ferro, L., Pierre, L.: Formal semantics for PSL modeling layer and application to the verification of transactional models. In: Proc. Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE), pp. 1207–1212. European Design and Automation Association (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Corbett, J.C., Dwyer, M., Hatcliff, J., Robby: A language framework for expressing checkable properties of dynamic software. In: Havelund, K., Penix, J., Visser, W. (eds.) SPIN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1885. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Corbett, J., Dwyer, M., Hatcliff, J., Robby: Expressing checkable properties of dynamic systems: The Bandera specification language. Technical Report 04, Kansas State University, Department of Computing and Information Sciences (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Armoni, R., Bustan, D., Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Resets vs. Aborts in linear temporal logic. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 65–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Armoni, R., Fix, L., Flaisher, A., Gerth, R., Ginsburg, B., Kanza, T., Landver, A., Mador-Haim, S., Singerman, E., Tiemeyer, A., Vardi, M.Y., Zbar, Y.: The forSpec temporal logic: A new temporal property-specification language. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, pp. 211–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eisner, C.: PSL for Runtime Verification: Theory and Practice. In: Sokolsky, O., Taşıran, S. (eds.) RV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4839, pp. 1–8. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barringer, H., Goldberg, A., Havelund, K., Sen, K.: Rule-based runtime verification. In: Fifth International Conference on Verification, Model Checking and Abstract Interpretation (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ChaoChen, Z., Hoare, T., Ravn, A.P.: A calculus of durations. Information Processing Letters 40(5), 269–276 (1991)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bradfield, J., Stevens, P.: Observational mu calculus. In: Proc. Workshop on Fixed Points in Computer Science (FICS), pp. 25–27 (1998); An extended version is available as BRICS-RS-99-5Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bradfield, J.C., Filipe, J.K., Stevens, P.: Enriching OCL using observational mu-calculus. In: Kutsche, R.-D., Weber, H. (eds.) FASE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2306, pp. 203–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lange, M.: Linear time logics around psl: Complexity, expressiveness, and a little bit of succinctness. In: Caires, L., Li, L. (eds.) CONCUR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4703, pp. 90–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A.: Real-time logics: complexity and expressiveness. Technical report, Stanford, CA, USA (1990)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fritz, C.: Constructing Büchi Automata from Linear Temporal Logic Using Simulation Relations for Alternating Büchi Automata. In: Ibarra, O.H., Dang, Z. (eds.) CIAA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2759, pp. 35–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gastin, P., Oddoux, D.: Fast LTL to büchi automata translation. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.) CAV 2001. LNCS, vol. 2102, pp. 53–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leucker, M., Sánchez, C.: Regular Linear Temporal Logic. In: Jones, C.B., Liu, Z., Woodcock, J. (eds.) ICTAC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4711, pp. 291–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Bauer
    • 1
  • Martin Leucker
    • 2
  1. 1.NICTA Canberra Research LabThe Australian National UniversityAustralia
  2. 2.Institut für Softwaretechnik und ProgrammiersprachenUniversity of LübeckGermany

Personalised recommendations