Specification, Algebra, and Software pp 560-577

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8373) | Cite as

Verifying the Design of Dynamic Software Updating in the OTS/CafeOBJ Method

  • Min Zhang
  • Kazuhiro Ogata
  • Kokichi Futatsugi

Abstract

Dynamic Software Updating (DSU) is a technique for updating running software systems without incurring downtime. However, a challenging problem is how to design a correct dynamic update so that the system after being updated will run as expected instead of causing any inconsistencies or even crashes. The OTS/CafeOBJ method is an effective and practical approach to specifying and verifying the design of software. In this paper, we propose an algebraic way of specifying and verifying the design of dynamic updates in the OTS/CafeOBJ method. By verifying the design of a dynamic update, we can (1) gain a better understanding of the update, e.g., how the behavior of the running system is affected by the update, (2) identify updating points where the dynamic update can be safely applied, (3) detect potential errors, and hence (4) design a safer dynamic update.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hicks, M., Nettles, S.: Dynamic software updating. ACM TOPLAS 27, 1049–1096 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duggan, D.: Type-based hot swapping of running modules. In: Functional Programming, vol. 36, pp. 62–73. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stoyle, G., Hicks, M., Bierman, G., et al.: Mutatis mutandis: safe and predictable dynamic software updating. ACM TOPLAS 40, 183–194 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neamtiu, I., Hicks, M., Foster, J., et al.: Contextual effects for version-consistent dynamic software updating and safe concurrent programming. In: POPL, vol. 43, pp. 37–49. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta, D., Jalote, P., Barua, G.: A formal framework for on-line software version change. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 22(2), 120–131 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayden, C.M., Magill, S., Hicks, M., Foster, N., Foster, J.S.: Specifying and verifying the correctness of dynamic software updates. In: Joshi, R., Müller, P., Podelski, A. (eds.) VSTTE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7152, pp. 278–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang, M., Ogata, K., Futatsugi, K.: Formalization and verification of behavioral correctness of dynamic software updates. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 294, 12–23 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Futatsugi, K., Goguen, J.A., Ogata, K.: Verifying design with proof scores. In: Meyer, B., Woodcock, J. (eds.) Verified Software. LNCS, vol. 4171, pp. 277–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ogata, K., Futatsugi, K.: Proof scores in the OTS/CafeOBJ method. In: Najm, E., Nestmann, U., Stevens, P. (eds.) FMOODS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2884, pp. 170–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ogata, K., Futatsugi, K.: Compositionally writing proof scores of invariants in the OTS/CafeOBJ method. J. UCS 19, 771–804 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ogata, K., Futatsugi, K.: Simulation-based verification for invariant properties in the OTS/CafeOBJ method. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 201, 127–154 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kong, W., Ogata, K., Futatsugi, K.: Towards reliable E-Government systems with the OTS/CafeOBJ method. IEICE Transactions 93-D, 974–984 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hasebe, K., Okada, M.: Formal analysis of the ikp electronic payment protocols. In: Okada, M., Babu, C. S., Scedrov, A., Tokuda, H. (eds.) ISSS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2609, pp. 441–460. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ogata, K., Futatsugi, K.: Formal verification of the horn-preneel micropayment protocol. In: Zuck, L.D., Attie, P.C., Cortesi, A., Mukhopadhyay, S. (eds.) VMCAI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2575, pp. 238–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ogata, K., Futatsugi, K.: Formal analysis of the bakery protocol with consideration of nonatomic reads and writes. In: Liu, S., Araki, K. (eds.) ICFEM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5256, pp. 187–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gupta, D., Jalote, P.: On-line software version change using state transfer between processes. Software: Practice and Experience 23, 949–964 (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neamtiu, I., Hicks, M.W., Stoyle, G., et al.: Practical dynamic software updating for c. In: PLDI, ACM SIGPLAN, pp. 72–83 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen, H., Yu, J., Hang, C., et al.: Dynamic software updating using a relaxed consistency model. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (99), 679–694 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Segal, M., Frieder, O.: On-the-fly program modification: Systems for dynamic updating. IEEE Software 10, 53–65 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hayden, C.M., Smith, E.K., Denchev, M., Hicks, M., Foster, J.S.: Kitsune: Efficient, general-purpose dynamic software updating for c. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, pp. 249–264. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Diaconescu, R., Futatsugi, K.: CafeOBJ report: The language. In: Proof Techniques, and Methodologies for Object-Oriented Algebraic Specification, vol. 6 (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ogata, K., Futatsugi, K.: Some tips on writing proof scores in the OTS/CafeOBJ method. In: Futatsugi, K., Jouannaud, J.-P., Meseguer, J. (eds.) Goguen Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 4060, pp. 596–615. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: All About Maude - A High-Performance Logical Framework. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang, M., Ogata, K., Nakamura, M.: Translation of state machines from equational theories into rewrite theories with tool support. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems 94-D, 976–988 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nakamura, M., Kong, W., et al.: A specification translation from behavioral specifications to rewrite specifications. IEICE Transactions 91-D, 1492–1503 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ogata, K., Nakano, M., Kong, W., Futatsugi, K.: Induction-guided falsification. In: Liu, Z., Kleinberg, R.D. (eds.) ICFEM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4260, pp. 114–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang, J., Cheng, B.H.C.: Model-based development of dynamically adaptive software. In: ICSE, pp. 371–380. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Min Zhang
    • 1
  • Kazuhiro Ogata
    • 1
  • Kokichi Futatsugi
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Center for Software VerificationJapan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST)Japan

Personalised recommendations