CAV 2013: Computer Aided Verification pp 912-927 | Cite as
Programs from Proofs – A PCC Alternative
Conference paper
Abstract
Proof-carrying code approaches aim at safe execution of untrusted code by having the code producer attach a safety proof to the code which the code consumer only has to validate. Depending on the type of safety property, proofs can however become quite large and their validation - though faster than their construction - still time consuming.
In this paper we introduce a new concept for safe execution of untrusted code. It keeps the idea of putting the time consuming part of proving on the side of the code producer, however, attaches no proofs to code anymore but instead uses the proof to transform the program into an equivalent but more efficiently verifiable program. Code consumers thus still do proving themselves, however, on a computationally inexpensive level only. Experimental results show that the proof effort can be reduced by several orders of magnitude, both with respect to time and space.
Keywords
Model Check Safety Property Code Producer Feasible Path 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.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Ball, T., Podelski, A., Rajamani, S.K.: Boolean and Cartesian Abstraction for Model Checking C Programs. In: Margaria, T., Yi, W. (eds.) TACAS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2031, pp. 268–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: Automatically validating temporal safety properties of interfaces. In: Dwyer, M.B. (ed.) SPIN 2001. LNCS, vol. 2057, pp. 103–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Bauer, L., Schneider, M.A., Felten, E.W., Appel, A.W.: Access control on the web using proof-carrying authorization. In: Proceedings of the 3rd DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, DISCEX (2), pp. 117–119 (2003)Google Scholar
- 4.Beyer, D., Keremoglu, M., Wendler, P.: Predicate Abstraction with Adjustable-Block Encoding. In: FMCAD 2010, pp. 189–197 (2010)Google Scholar
- 5.Beyer, D., Chlipala, A.J., Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: The Blast query language for software verification. In: Giacobazzi, R. (ed.) SAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3148, pp. 2–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Keremoglu, M.E., Wendler, P.: Conditional model checking: a technique to pass information between verifiers. In: Tracz, W., Robillard, M.P., Bultan, T. (eds.) SIGSOFT FSE, p. 57. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
- 7.Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Majumdar, R., Rybalchenko, A.: Path invariants. In: Ferrante, J., McKinley, K.S. (eds.) PLDI, pp. 300–309. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
- 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.Bodden, E., Lam, P., Hendren, L.: Clara: A Framework for Partially Evaluating Finite-State Runtime Monitors Ahead of Time. In: Barringer, H., Falcone, Y., Finkbeiner, B., Havelund, K., Lee, I., Pace, G., Roşu, G., Sokolsky, O., Tillmann, N. (eds.) RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418, pp. 183–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Crary, K., Weirich, S.: Resource bound certification. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 184–198 (2000)Google Scholar
- 11.Das, M., Lerner, S., Seigle, M.: ESP: Path-Sensitive Program Verification in Polynomial Time. In: PLDI, pp. 57–68 (2002)Google Scholar
- 12.Dhurjati, D., Das, M., Yang, Y.: Path-sensitive dataflow analysis with iterative refinement. In: Yi, K. (ed.) SAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4134, pp. 425–442. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Drzevitzky, S., Kastens, U., Platzner, M.: Proof-carrying hardware: Towards runtime verification of reconfigurable modules. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Reconfigurable Computing (ReConFig), pp. 189–194. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
- 14.Dwyer, M.B., Hatcliff, J., Hoosier, M., Ranganath, V.P., Robby, Wallentine, T.: Evaluating the effectiveness of slicing for model reduction of concurrent object-oriented programs. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 73–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Dwyer, M.B., Purandare, R.: Residual dynamic typestate analysis exploiting static analysis: results to reformulate and reduce the cost of dynamic analysis. In: ASE, pp. 124–133. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
- 16.Graf, S., Saidi, 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.Gray, R., Levi, S., Heuring, V., Sloane, A., Waite, W.: Eli: A complete, flexible compiler construction system. Communications of the ACM 35(2), 121–130 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Necula, G.C., Sutre, G., Weimer, W.: Temporal-safety proofs for systems code. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 526–538. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sanvido, M.A.A.: Extreme model checking. In: Dershowitz, N. (ed.) Verification: Theory and Practice. LNCS, vol. 2772, pp. 332–358. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
- 20.Leroy, X.: Bytecode verification on java smart cards. Softw. Pract. Exper. 32(4), 319–340 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 21.Necula, G.C.: Proof-carrying code. In: POPL 1997, pp. 106–119. ACM, New York (1997)Google Scholar
- 22.Necula, G.C., Lee, P.: Safe, untrusted agents using proof-carrying code. In: Vigna, G. (ed.) Mobile Agents and Security. LNCS, vol. 1419, pp. 61–91. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Rose, E.: Lightweight bytecode verification. Journal of Automated Reasoning 31, 303–334 (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 24.Strom, R.E., Yemini, S.: Typestate: A programming language concept for enhancing software reliability. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 12(1), 157–171 (1986)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013