To Run What No One Has Run Before: Executing an Intermediate Verification Language

  • Nadia Polikarpova
  • Carlo A. Furia
  • Scott West
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8174)

Abstract

When program verification fails, it is often hard to understand what went wrong in the absence of concrete executions that expose parts of the implementation or specification responsible for the failure. Automatic generation of such tests would require “executing” the complex specifications typically used for verification (with unbounded quantification and other expressive constructs), something beyond the capabilities of standard testing tools.

This paper presents a technique to automatically generate executions of programs annotated with complex specifications, and its implementation for the Boogie intermediate verification language. Our approach combines symbolic execution and SMT constraint solving to generate small tests that are easy to read and understand. The evaluation on several program verification examples demonstrates that our test case generation technique can help understand failed verification attempts in conditions where traditional testing is not applicable, thus making formal verification techniques easier to use in practice.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Antoy, S., Hanus, M.: Functional logic programming. Commun. ACM 53(4), 74–85 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cadar, C., Sen, K.: Symbolic execution for software testing: three decades later. Commun. ACM 56(2), 82–90 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    Cohen, E., Dahlweid, M., Hillebrand, M., Leinenbach, D., Moskal, M., Santen, T., Schulte, W., Tobies, S.: VCC: A practical system for verifying concurrent C. In: Berghofer, S., Nipkow, T., Urban, C., Wenzel, M. (eds.) TPHOLs 2009. LNCS, vol. 5674, pp. 23–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Furia, C.A., Meyer, B., Velder, S.: Loop invariants: Analysis, classification, and examples (2012), http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.4470
  7. 7.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. MIT Press (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacobs, B., Piessens, F.: The VeriFast program verifier. Technical Report CW-520, Department of Computer Science, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (August 2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kiselyov, O., Shan, C.-C., Friedman, D.P., Sabry, A.: Backtracking, interleaving, and terminating monad transformers (functional pearl). In: ICFP, pp. 192–203. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klebanov, V., et al.: The 1st verified software competition: Experience report. In: Butler, M., Schulte, W. (eds.) FM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6664, pp. 154–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klein, G., Elphinstone, K., Heiser, G., Andronick, J., Cock, D., Derrin, P., Elkaduwe, D., Engelhardt, K., Kolanski, R., Norrish, M., Sewell, T., Tuch, H., Winwood, S.: seL4: Formal verification of an OS kernel. In: SOSP, pp. 207–220. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Köksal, A., Kuncak, V., Suter, P.: Constraints as control. In: POPL, pp. 151–164 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuncak, V., Mayer, M., Piskac, R., Suter, P.: Complete functional synthesis. In: PLDI, pp. 316–329. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Le Goues, C., Leino, K.R.M., Moskal, M.: The boogie verification debugger (Tool paper). In: Barthe, G., Pardo, A., Schneider, G. (eds.) SEFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 7041, pp. 407–414. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leavens, G.T., Cheon, Y., Clifton, C., Ruby, C., Cok, D.R.: How the design of JML accommodates both runtime assertion checking and formal verification. Sci. Comput. Program. 55(1-3), 185–208 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leinenbach, D., Santen, T.: Verifying the microsoft hyper-V hypervisor with VCC. In: Cavalcanti, A., Dams, D.R. (eds.) FM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5850, pp. 806–809. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leino, K.R.M.: This is Boogie 2 (2008), http://goo.gl/QsH6g
  18. 18.
    Leino, K.R.M.: Dafny: An automatic program verifier for functional correctness. In: Clarke, E.M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR-16 2010. LNCS, vol. 6355, pp. 348–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leino, K.R.M., Moskal, M.: Usable auto-active verification. In: Usable Verification Workshop (2010), http://fm.csl.sri.com/UV10/
  20. 20.
    Milicevic, A., Rayside, D., Yessenov, K., Jackson, D.: Unifying execution of imperative and declarative code. In: ICSE, pp. 511–520. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Müller, P., Ruskiewicz, J.N.: Using debuggers to understand failed verification attempts. In: Butler, M., Schulte, W. (eds.) FM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6664, pp. 73–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pattis, R.E.: Textbook errors in binary searching. In: SIGCSE, pp. 190–194. ACM (1988)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Polikarpova, N., Furia, C.A., Pei, Y., Wei, Y., Meyer, B.: What good are strong specifications? In: ICSE, pp. 257–266. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Suter, P., Köksal, A.S., Kuncak, V.: Satisfiability modulo recursive programs. In: Yahav, E. (ed.) SAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6887, pp. 298–315. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tschannen, J., Furia, C.A., Nordio, M., Meyer, B.: Usable verification of object-oriented programs by combining static and dynamic techniques. In: Barthe, G., Pardo, A., Schneider, G. (eds.) SEFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 7041, pp. 382–398. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tschannen, J., Furia, C.A., Nordio, M., Meyer, B.: Verifying Eiffel programs with Boogie. In: BOOGIE Workshop (2011), http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4700
  27. 27.
    Tschannen, J., Furia, C.A., Nordio, M., Meyer, B.: Program checking with less hassle. In: VSTTE (to appear, 2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zee, K., Kuncak, V., Taylor, M., Rinard, M.C.: Runtime checking for program verification. In: Sokolsky, O., Taşıran, S. (eds.) RV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4839, pp. 202–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadia Polikarpova
    • 1
  • Carlo A. Furia
    • 1
  • Scott West
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Software EngineeringETH ZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations