Advertisement

Decentralized Stream Runtime Verification

  • Luis Miguel DanielssonEmail author
  • César SánchezEmail author
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11757)

Abstract

We study the problem of decentralized monitoring of stream runtime verification specifications. Decentralized monitoring uses distributed monitors that communicate via a synchronous network, a communication setting common in many cyber-physical systems like automotive CPSs. Previous approaches to decentralized monitoring were restricted to logics like LTL logics that provide Boolean verdicts. We solve here the decentralized monitoring problem for the more general setting of stream runtime verification. Additionally, our solution handles network topologies while previous decentralized monitoring works assumed that every pair of nodes can communicate directly. We also introduce a novel property on specifications, called decentralized efficient monitorability, that guarantees that the online monitoring can be performed with bounded resources. Finally, we report the results of an empirical evaluation of an implementation and compare the expressive power and efficiency against state-of-the-art decentralized monitoring tools like Themis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Asarin, E., Caspi, P., Maler, O.: Timed regular expressions. J. ACM 49(2), 172–206 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barringer, H., Goldberg, A., Havelund, K., Sen, K.: Rule-based runtime verification. In: Steffen, B., Levi, G. (eds.) VMCAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 2937, pp. 44–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24622-0_5CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basin, D., Klaedtke, F., Zalinescu, E.: Failure-aware runtime verification of distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the 35th IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS 2015). LIPIcs. vol. 45, pp. 590–603. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bauer, A., Küster, J.-C., Vegliach, G.: From propositional to first-order monitoring. In: Legay, A., Bensalem, S. (eds.) RV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8174, pp. 59–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40787-1_4CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Runtime verification for LTL and TLTL. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 20(4), 14 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bauer, A., Falcone, Y.: Decentralised LTL monitoring. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 85–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32759-9_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Convent, L., Hungerecker, S., Leucker, M., Scheffel, T., Schmitz, M., Thoma, D.: TeSSLa: temporal stream-based specification language. In: Massoni, T., Mousavi, M.R. (eds.) SBMF 2018. LNCS, vol. 11254, pp. 144–162. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03044-5_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cristian, F., Fetzer, C.: The timed asynchronous distributed system model. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 10(6), 642–657 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D’Angelo, B., et al.: LOLA: runtime monitoring of synchronous systems. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium of Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME 2005), pp. 166–174. IEEE CS Press (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eisner, C., Fisman, D., Havlicek, J., Lustig, Y., McIsaac, A., Van Campenhout, D.: Reasoning with temporal logic on truncated paths. In: Hunt, W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 27–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45069-6_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    El-Hokayem, A., Falcone, Y.: Monitoring decentralized specifications. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA 2017), pp. 125–135. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    El-Hokayem, A., Falcone, Y.: THEMIS: a tool for decentralized monitoring algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA 2017), pp. 125–135. ACM, July 2017Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faymonville, P., Finkbeiner, B., Schirmer, S., Torfah, H.: A stream-based specification language for network monitoring. In: Falcone, Y., Sánchez, C. (eds.) RV 2016. LNCS, vol. 10012, pp. 152–168. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46982-9_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faymonville, P., et al.: StreamLAB: stream-based monitoring of cyber-physical systems. In: Dillig, I., Tasiran, S. (eds.) CAV 2019. LNCS, vol. 11561, pp. 421–431. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25540-4_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Francalanza, A., Pérez, J.A., Sánchez, C.: Runtime verification for decentralised and distributed systems. In: Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y. (eds.) Lectures on Runtime Verification. LNCS, vol. 10457, pp. 176–210. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75632-5_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gorostiaga, F., Sánchez, C.: Striver: stream runtime verification for real-time event-streams. In: Colombo, C., Leucker, M. (eds.) RV 2018. LNCS, vol. 11237, pp. 282–298. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03769-7_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Havelund, K., Roşu, G.: Synthesizing monitors for safety properties. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, pp. 342–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46002-0_24CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO Central Secretary: Road vehicles interchange of digital information controller area network (CAN) for high speed communication. Standard ISO 11898, International Standards Organisation (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liebemann, E.K., Meder, K., Schuh, J., Nenninger, G.: Safety and performance enhancement: the Bosch electronic stability control (ESP). In: SAE, pp. 421–428 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pike, L., Goodloe, A., Morisset, R., Niller, S.: Copilot: a hard real-time runtime monitor. 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. 345–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16612-9_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pike, L., Wegmann, N., Niller, S., Goodloe, A.: Copilot: monitoring embedded systems. Innovations Syst. Softw. Eng. 9(4), 235–255 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roşu, G., Havelund, K.: Rewriting-based techniques for runtime verification. Autom. Softw. Eng. 12(2), 151–197 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sánchez, C.: Online and offline stream runtime verification of synchronous systems. In: Colombo, C., Leucker, M. (eds.) RV 2018. LNCS, vol. 11237, pp. 138–163. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03769-7_9CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sen, K., Roşu, G.: Generating optimal monitors for extended regular expressions. In: Sokolsky, O., Viswanathan, M. (eds.) Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 89. Elsevier (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sen, K., Vardhan, A., Agha, G., Rosu, G.: Efficient decentralized monitoring of safety in distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2004), pp. 418–427. IEEE CS Press (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IMDEA Software InstituteMadridSpain
  2. 2.Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM)MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options