Advertisement

Verifying the correctness of AADL modules using model checking

  • Bernhard Josko
Technical Contributions
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 430)

Abstract

This paper presents a temporal logic MCTL which is suitable for modular specification and verification of computer architectures. MCTL has the advantage that open systems can be specified and verified; i.e. it allows the specification of properties under some assumptions on the environment. The module concept may help to solve the state explosion problem in the verification of temporal logic specifications. To verify the correctness of an implementation we describe a model checking algoritm for that logic.

Key words

temporal logic expressiveness model checking modular specification verification computer architecture 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

6 References

  1. [AADL89]
    W. Damm, G. Döhmen, B. Josko, F. Korf, T. Peikenkamp: AADL Language Document. Internal report, University of Oldenburg, 1989Google Scholar
  2. [BMP83]
    M. Ben-Ari, Z. Manna, A. Pnueli: The temporal logic of branching time. Acta Informatica 20, 207–226 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [CES83]
    E.M. Clarke, E.A. Emerson, A.P. Sistla: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications: a practical approach. Tenth ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 117–126 (1983)Google Scholar
  4. [DD90]
    W.Damm, G. Döhmen: AADL: A net based specification method for computer architecture design. in: de Bakker (Ed.): Languages for Parallel Architectures: Design, Semantics, and Implementation Models, Wiley & Sons (1990)Google Scholar
  5. [DDGJ89]
    W. Damm, G. Döhmen, V. Gerstner, B. Josko: Modular verification of Petri nets: The temporal logic approach. REX Workshop on Stepwise Refinement of Distributed Systems: Models, Formalisms, Correctness. 1989Google Scholar
  6. [EH85]
    E.A. Emerson, J.Y. Halpern: Decision procedures and expressiveness in the temporal logic of branching time. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 30, 1–24 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [EH86]
    E.A. Emerson, J.Y. Halpern: "Sometimes" and "not never" revisited: On branching versus linear time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM 33, 151–178 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [EL85]
    E.A. Emerson, C.L. Lei: Modalities for model checking: branching time logic strikes back. Technical Report, Dep. of Computer Sciences, University of Texas (1985)Google Scholar
  9. [Jo87]
    B. Josko: Modelchecking of CTL formulae under liveness assumptions. Proceedings of 14th ICALP-Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 267, 280–289 (1987)Google Scholar
  10. [Jo89]
    B. Josko: Modelchecking of CTL formulae under liveness and safety assumptions. Internal report, University of Oldenburg (1989)Google Scholar
  11. [MP81]
    Z. Manna, A. Pnueli: Verification of concurrent programs: The temporal framework. in: R,S. Boyer, J.S. Moore (Eds.): The Correctness Problem in Computer Science. Academic Press (1981)Google Scholar
  12. [SC82]
    A.P. Sistla, E.M. Clarke: The complexity of propositional temporal logic. 14th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 157–167 (1982)Google Scholar
  13. [SC85]
    A.P. Sistla, E.M. Clarke: The complexity of propositional linear temporal logic. Journal of the ACM 32, 733–749 (1985)Google Scholar
  14. [Ta72]
    R. Tarjan: Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM Journal of Computing 1, 146–160 (1972)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Josko
    • 1
  1. 1.FB 10, University of OldenburgOldenburgFed. Rep. of Germany

Personalised recommendations