Linux driver verification is a large application area for software verification methods, in particular, for functional, safety, and security verification. Linux driver software is industrial production code — IT infrastructures rely on its stability, and thus, there are strong requirements for correctness and reliability. This implies that if a verification engineer has identified a bug in a driver, the engineer can expect quick response from the development community in terms of bug confirmation and correction. Linux driver software is complex, low-level systems code, and its characteristics make it necessary to bring to bear techniques from program analysis, SMT solvers, model checking, and other areas of software verification. These areas have recently made a significant progress in terms of precision and performance, and the complex task of verifying Linux driver software can be successful if the conceptual state-of-the-art becomes available in tool implementations.


Model Check Device Driver Symbolic Model Check Bounded Model Checker Predicate Abstraction 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: The Slam Project: Debugging System Software via Static Analysis. In: Proc. POPL, pp. 1–3. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basler, G., Donaldson, A., Kaiser, A., Kröning, D., Tautschnig, M., Wahl, T.: SatAbs: A Bit-Precise Verifier for C Programs. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 552–555. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyer, D.: Competition on Software Verification. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 504–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beyer, D., Cimatti, A., Griggio, A., Keremoglu, M.E., Sebastiani, R.: Software Model Checking via Large-block Encoding. In: Proc. FMCAD, pp. 25–32. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: The Software Model Checker Blast. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 9(5-6), 505–525 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Keremoglu, M.E., Wendler, P.: Conditional Model Checking: A Technique to Pass Information Between Verifiers. In: Proc. FSE. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Théoduloz, G.: Program Analysis with Dynamic Precision Adjustment. In: Proc. ASE, pp. 29–38. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beyer, D., Keremoglu, M.E.: CPAchecker: A Tool for Configurable Software Verification. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 184–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beyer, D., Keremoglu, M.E., Wendler, P.: Predicate Abstraction with Adjustable-block Encoding. In: Proc. FMCAD, pp. 189–197. FMCAD (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic Model Checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided Abstraction Refinement for Symbolic Model Checking. J. ACM 50(5), 752–794 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clarke, E., Kroning, D., Sharygina, N., Yorav, K.: SatAbs: SAT-Based Predicate Abstraction for ANSI-C. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 570–574. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cook, B., Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Terminator: Beyond Safety. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 415–418. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cordeiro, L., Morse, J., Nicole, D., Fischer, B.: Context-Bounded Model Checking with ESBMC 1.17. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 534–537. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R., Feret, J., Mauborgne, L., Miné, A., Monniaux, D., Rival, X.: Combination of Abstractions in the ASTRÉE Static Analyzer. In: Okada, M., Satoh, I. (eds.) ASIAN 2006. LNCS, vol. 4435, pp. 272–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dudka, K., Müller, P., Peringer, P., Vojnar, T.: Predator: A Verification Tool for Programs with Dynamic Linked Data Structures. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 545–548. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Galloway, A., Lüttgen, G., Mühlberg, J.T., Siminiceanu, R.I.: Model-Checking the Linux Virtual File System. In: Jones, N.D., Müller-Olm, M. (eds.) VMCAI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5403, pp. 74–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grebenshchikov, S., Gupta, A., Lopes, N.P., Popeea, C., Rybalchenko, A.: HSF(C): A Software Verifier Based on Horn Clauses. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 549–551. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gupta, A., Popeea, C., Rybalchenko, A.: Threader: A Constraint-Based Verifier for Multi-threaded Programs. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 412–417. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., McMillan, K.L.: Abstractions from Proofs. In: Proc. POPL, pp. 232–244. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Lazy Abstraction. In: Proc. POPL, pp. 58–70. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khoroshilov, A., Mutilin, V., Novikov, E., Shved, P., Strakh, A.: Towards an Open Framework for C Verification Tools Benchmarking. In: Clarke, E., Virbitskaite, I., Voronkov, A. (eds.) PSI 2011. LNCS, vol. 7162, pp. 179–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khoroshilov, A., Mutilin, V., Petrenko, A., Zakharov, V.: Establishing Linux Driver Verification Process. In: Pnueli, A., Virbitskaite, I., Voronkov, A. (eds.) PSI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5947, pp. 165–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mühlberg, J.T., Lüttgen, G.: Blasting Linux Code. In: Brim, L., Haverkort, B.R., Leucker, M., van de Pol, J. (eds.) FMICS 2006 and PDMC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4346, pp. 211–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Penninckx, W., Mühlberg, J.T., Smans, J., Jacobs, B., Piessens, F.: Sound Formal Verification of Linux’s USB BP Keyboard Driver. In: Goodloe, A.E., Person, S. (eds.) NFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7226, pp. 210–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Transition Predicate Abstraction and Fair Termination. In: Proc. POPL, pp. 132–144. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Post, H., Sinz, C., Küchlin, W.: Towards Automatic Software Model Checking of Thousands of Linux Modules — A Case Study with Avinux. Softw. Test., Verif. Reliab. 19(2), 155–172 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shved, P., Mandrykin, M., Mutilin, V.: Predicate Analysis with BLAST 2.7. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 525–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shved, P., Mutilin, V., Mandrykin, M.: Experience of Improving the Blast Static Verification Tool. Programming and Computer Software 38(3), 134–142 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sinz, C., Merz, F., Falke, S.: LLBMC: A Bounded Model Checker for LLVM’s Intermediate Representation. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 542–544. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    von Rhein, A., Apel, S., Raimondi, F.: Introducing Binary Decision Diagrams in the Explicit-state Verification of Java Code. In: Proc. Java Pathfinder Workshop (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Witkowski, T., Blanc, N., Kröning, D., Weissenbacher, G.: Model Checking Concurrent Linux Device Drivers. In: Proc. ASE, pp. 501–504. ACM (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Beyer
    • 1
  • Alexander K. Petrenko
    • 2
  1. 1.University of PassauGermany
  2. 2.ISPRASMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations