Advertisement

Asynchronously Communicating Visibly Pushdown Systems

  • Domagoj Babić
  • Zvonimir Rakamarić
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7892)

Abstract

We introduce an automata-based formal model suitable for specifying, modeling, analyzing, and verifying asynchronous task-based and message-passing programs. Our model consists of visibly pushdown automata communicating over unbounded reliable point-to-point first-in-first-out queues. Such a combination unifies two branches of research, one focused on task-based models, and the other on models of message-passing programs. Our model generalizes previously proposed models that have decidable reachability in several ways. Unlike task-based models of asynchronous programs, our model allows sending and receiving of messages even when stacks are not empty, without imposing restrictions on the number of context-switches or communication topology. Our model also generalizes the well-known communicating finite-state machines with recognizable channel property allowing (1) individual components to be visibly pushdown automata, which are more suitable for modeling (possibly recursive) programs, (2) the set of words (i.e., languages) of messages on queues to form a visibly pushdown language, which permits modeling of remote procedure calls and simple forms of counting, and (3) the relations formed by tuples of such languages to be synchronized, which permits modeling of complex interactions among processes. In spite of these generalizations, we prove that the composite configuration and control-state reachability are still decidable for our model.

Keywords

Model Check Tree Automaton Reachability Problem Communication Topology FIFO Queue 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdulla, P.A., Jonsson, B., Nilsson, M., Saksena, M.: A survey of regular model checking. In: Gardner, P., Yoshida, N. (eds.) CONCUR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3170, pp. 35–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R., Madhusudan, P.: Visibly pushdown languages. In: Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 202–211 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Babić, D., Rakamarić, Z.: Asynchronously communicating visibly pushdown systems. Technical Report UCB/EECS-2011-108, University of California, Berkeley (October 2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ball, T., Majumdar, R., Millstein, T., Rajamani, S.K.: Automatic predicate abstraction of C programs. In: Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 203–213 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basu, S., Bultan, T., Ouederni, M.: Synchronizability for verification of asynchronously communicating systems. In: Kuncak, V., Rybalchenko, A. (eds.) VMCAI 2012. LNCS, vol. 7148, pp. 56–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boigelot, B., Godefroid, P., Willems, B., Wolper, P.: The power of QDDs. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (ed.) SAS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1302, pp. 172–186. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouajjani, A., Habermehl, P., Rogalewicz, A., Vojnar, T.: Abstract regular tree model checking. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 149, 37–48 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bouajjani, A., Habermehl, P., Vojnar, T.: Abstract regular model checking. In: Alur, R., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3114, pp. 372–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bouajjani, A., Jonsson, B., Nilsson, M., Touili, T.: Regular model checking. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 403–418. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brand, D., Zafiropulo, P.: On communicating finite-state machines. Journal of ACM 30, 323–342 (1983)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Comon, H., Dauchet, M., Gilleron, R., Löding, C., Jacquemard, F., Lugiez, D., Tison, S., Tommasi, M.: Tree automata techniques and applications (2007), http://tata.gforge.inria.fr/
  12. 12.
    Eilenberg, S., Elgot, C.C., Shepherdson, J.C.: Sets recognized by n-tape automata. Journal of Algebra 13, 447–464 (1969)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frougny, C., Sakarovitch, J.: Synchronized rational relations of finite and infinite words. Theoretical Computer Science 108, 45–82 (1993)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ganty, P., Majumdar, R.: Algorithmic verification of asynchronous programs. Computing Research Repository (CoRR), abs/1011.0551 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gold, E.M.: Language identication in the limit. Info. and Control 10(5), 447–474 (1967)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Graf, S., Saïdi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harju, T., Karhumäki, J.: The equivalence problem of multitape finite automata. Theoretical Computer Science 78, 347–355 (1991)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hill, J.L., Szewczyk, R., Woo, A., Hollar, S., Culler, D.E., Pister, K.S.J.: System architecture directions for networked sensors. In: Intl. Conf. on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pp. 93–104 (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kohler, E., Morris, R., Chen, B., Jannotti, J., Kaashoek, M.F.: The Click modular router. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 18(3), 263–297 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    La Torre, S., Madhusudan, P., Parlato, G.: Context-bounded analysis of concurrent queue systems. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 299–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pachl, J.K.: Reachability problems for communicating finite state machines. Technical Report CS-82-12, Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo (1982)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pachl, J.K.: Protocol description and analysis based on a state transition model with channel expressions. In: Intl. Conf. on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification (PSTV), pp. 207–219 (1987)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pai, V.S., Druschel, P., Zwaenepoel, W.: Flash: An efficient and portable Web server. In: USENIX Annual Technical Conference, pp. 199–212 (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Qadeer, S., Rehof, J.: Context-bounded model checking of concurrent software. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 93–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rabin, M.O., Scott, D.: Finite automata and their decision problems. IBM Journal of Research and Development 3, 114–125 (1959)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ramalingam, G.: Context-sensitive synchronization-sensitive analysis is undecidable. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 22, 416–430 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raskin, J.-F., Servais, F.: Visibly pushdown transducers. In: Aceto, L., Damgård, I., Goldberg, L.A., Halldórsson, M.M., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Walukiewicz, I. (eds.) ICALP 2008, Part II. LNCS, vol. 5126, pp. 386–397. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sen, K., Viswanathan, M.: Model checking multithreaded programs with asynchronous atomic methods. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 300–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thomas, W.: On logical definability of trace languages. In: ASMICS Workshop, Technical University of Munich, Report TUM-I9002, pp. 172–182 (1990)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vardhan, A., Sen, K., Viswanathan, M., Agha, G.: Learning to verify safety properties. In: Davies, J., Schulte, W., Barnett, M. (eds.) ICFEM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3308, pp. 274–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Domagoj Babić
    • 1
  • Zvonimir Rakamarić
    • 2
  1. 1.Facebook, Inc.USA
  2. 2.University of UtahUSA

Personalised recommendations