Transfer of Model Checking to Industrial Practice

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter traces the practical challenges that were overcome in order to transfer model-checking theory to industrial practice. In retrospect, this transfer provided a lesson in how to, and how not to accomplish technology transfer. The methodology changes required for industrial model checking were achieved through a succession of steps, each of which was small enough to avoid unacceptable disruption of existing methodologies, while significant enough to demonstrate value.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    http://www.absint.de/astree/ accessed 20 Oct 2013
  2. 2.
    Accellera Property Specification Language Reference Manual (version 1.01). http://www.eda.org/vfv/docs/psl_lrm-1.01.pdf accessed 20 Oct 2013
  3. 3.
    Ahrens, F.: Why It’s So Hard For Toyota To Find Out What’s Wrong. The Washington Post p. G01 (2010). see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/06/AR2010030602448_pf.html accessed 20 Oct 2013
  4. 4.
    Akers, S.B.: Binary decision diagrams. IEEE Trans. Comput. C-27(6), 509–516 (1978) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alur, R.: Model checking: from tools to theory. In: Grumberg, O., Veith, H. (eds.) 25 Years of Model Checking. LNCS, vol. 5000, pp. 89–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alur, R., Itai, A., Kurshan, R.P., Yannakakis, M.: Timing verification by successive approximation. In: von Bochmann, G., Probst, D. (eds.) Proc. CAV’92. LNCS, vol. 663, pp. 137–150. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). Also Inf. Comput. 118(1), 142–157 (1995) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    http://www.astree.ens.fr/ accessed 20 Oct 2013
  8. 8.
    Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: The SLAM project: debugging system software via static analysis. In: Launchbury, J., Mitchell, J.C. (eds.) Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 1–3. ACM, New York (2002) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barr, M.: Unintended acceleration and other embedded software bugs (2011). http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/2011/03/unintended-acceleration-and-other-embedded-software-bugs/ accessed 20 Oct 2013
  10. 10.
    Berry, G., Gonthier, G.: The ESTEREL synchronous programming language: design, semantics, implementation. Sci. Comput. Program. 19(2), 87–152 (1992) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bessey, A., Block, K., Chelf, B., Chou, A., Fulton, B., Hallem, S., Henri-Gros, C., Kamsky, A., McPeak, S., Engler, D.: A few billion lines of code later: using static analysis to find bugs in the real world. Commun. ACM 53, 66–75 (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Fujita, M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDDs. In: Proc. 36th Design Automation Conference, pp. 317–320. IEEE, Piscataway (1999) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blau, J.: AT&T’s frame relay crash highlights vulnerable nature of data networks. Total Telcom (1998). http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?C=0&ID=433385 accessed 20 Oct 2013
  14. 14.
    Bledsoe, W.W., Loveland, D.W. (eds.): Automated Theorem Proving: After 25 Years, vol. 29. AMS, Providence (1984). Especially the paper “Proof-Checking, Theorem-Proving and Program Verification” by R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore, 119–132 MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bradley, A.R.: SAT-based model checking without unrolling. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D. (eds.) Proc. VMCAI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 70–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brayton, R., Mishchenko, A.: ABC: an academic industrial-strength verification tool. In: Tonilli, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) Proc. CAV’10. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 24–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bryant, R.: Computer-aided verification prize awarded. Not. Am. Math. Soc. 56(11), 1456–1457 (2009) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bryant, R.E.: Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. Comput. 35(8), 677–691 (1986) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bryant, R.E., Kukula, J.H.: Formal methods for functional verification. In: Kuehlmann, A. (ed.) The Best of ICCAD: 20 Years of Excellence in Computer-Aided Design, pp. 3–16. Kluwer Academic, Norwell (2003) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Büchi, J.R.: On a decision method in restricted second-order arithmetic. In: Nagel, E., Suppes, P., Tarski, A. (eds.) Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Proc., 1960 Stanford Intern. Congr., pp. 1–11. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1962) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Church, A.: Application of recursive arithmetics to the problem of circuit synthesis. In: Summaries of Talks Presented at the Summer Institute for Symbolic Logic, pp. 3–50 (1957). Communications Research Division, Institute for Defense Analysis Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clarke, E.M.: The birth of model checking. In: Grumberg, O., Veith, H. (eds.) 25 Years of Model Checking. LNCS, vol. 5000, pp. 1–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clarke, E.M., Biere, A., Raimi, R., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking using satisfiability solving. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 19(1), 7–34 (2001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons for branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Proc. Logic of Programs Workshop. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM 50(5), 752–794 (2003). A preliminary version was published as “Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement”. In: Emerson, E.A., Prasad, A. (eds.) Proc. CAV’00. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2000) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clarke, E.M., Kroening, D., Lerda, F.: A tool for checking ANSI-C programs. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) Proc. Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2004). LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 168–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    NASA’s metric confusion caused Mars orbiter loss (1999). http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/; see also http://www.thinkreliability.com/CM-MarsCO.aspx; both accessed 20 Oct 2013
  28. 28.
    Coe, T.: Inside the Pentium FDIV bug. Dr. Dobb’s J. 20, 129–135 (1995) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Basic concepts of abstract interpretation. In: Jacquard, R. (ed.) Building the Information Society, pp. 359–366. Kluwer Academic, Norwell (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Dill, D.L., Drexler, A.J., Hu, A.J., Yang, C.H.: Protocol verification as a hardware design aid. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Design: VLSI in Computers and Processors, pp. 522–525. IEEE, Piscataway (1992) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Emanuelsson, P., Nilsson, U.: A comparative study of industrial static analysis tools. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 217, 5–21 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.entcs.2008.06.039 accessed 20 Oct 2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Emerson, E.A.: The beginning of model checking: a personal perspective. In: Grumberg, O., Veith, H. (eds.) 25 Years of Model Checking. LNCS, vol. 5000, pp. 27–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Emerson, E.A., Lei, C.L.: Efficient model checking in fragments of the propositional \(\mu\)-calculus. In: Proc. LICS, pp. 267–278. IEEE, Piscataway (1986) Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fiskio-Lasseter, J., Sabry, A.: Putting operational techniques to the test: a syntactic theory for behavioral Verilog. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 26, 34–51 (1999) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Floyd, R.W.: Assigning meanings to programs. In: Mathematical Aspects of Computer Science, vol. 19, pp. 19–32 (1967) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lucent’s Bell introduces FormalCheck. Electronic News (1997) Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Foster, H.: Prologue: the 2010 Wilson research group functional verification study (2011). http://blogs.mentor.com/verificationhorizons/blog/2011/03/30/prologue-the-2010-wilson-research-group-functional-verification-study/ accessed 20 Oct 2013
  39. 39.
    Foster, H.D., Krolnik, A.C., Lacey, D.J.: Assertion Based Design, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic, Norwell (2004) Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Goldstine, H.H., von Neumann, J.: Planning and Coding of the Problems for an Electronic Computing Instrument. Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton (1947) Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gordon, M., Milner, R., Wadsworth, C.P.: Edinburgh LCF: A Mechanised Logic of Computation. LNCS, vol. 78 (1979) MATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
  43. 43.
    Grumberg, O.: McMillan receives CAV award. Not. Am. Math. Soc. 57(10), 1318 (2010) Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Grumberg, O., Veith, H. (eds.): 25 Years of Model Checking. LNCS, vol. 5000. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) MATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gupta, A.: Alur and Dill receive computer-aided verification award. Not. Am. Math. Soc. 55(11), 1429 (2008) Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for programming. Commun. ACM 12(10), 576–580 (1969) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Huuck, R., Lukoschus, B., Frehse, G., Engell, S.: Compositional verification of continuous-discrete systems. In: Engell, S., Frehse, G., Schnieder, E. (eds.) Modelling, Analysis, and Design of Hybrid Systems. LNCS, vol. 279, pp. 225–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Toyota shareholders in US sue over fallen stock price. JapanToday (2010). http://www.japantoday.com/category/business/view/toyota-shareholders-in-us-sue-over-fallen-stock-price accessed 06 Aug 2013
  49. 49.
    Jhala, R., McMillan, K.L.: Interpolant-based transition relation approximation. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S. (eds.) Proc. CAV’05. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 39–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kaufmann, M., Moore, J.S.: Some key research problems in automated theorem proving for hardware and software verification. Rev. R. Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fís. Nat., Ser. a Mat. 98(1), 185–195 (2004) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Khasidashvili, Z., Gavrielov, G., Melham, T.: Assume-guarantee validation for STE properties within an SVA environment. In: Biere, A., Pixley, C. (eds.) Proc. FMCAD’09, pp. 108–115. IEEE, Piscataway (2009) Google Scholar
  52. 52.
  53. 53.
    Kozen, D.: Results on propositional \(\mu\)-calculus. Theor. Comput. Sci. 27, 333–354 (1983) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kurshan, R.P.: Computer-Aided Verification of Coordinating Processes: The Automata-Theoretic Approach. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994) MATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kurshan, R.P.: Formal verification in a commercial setting. In: Proc. DAC’97, vol. 34, pp. 258–262 (1997) Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kurshan, R.P.: Program verification. Not. Am. Math. Soc. 47(5), 534–545 (2000) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kurshan, R.P.: Scaling commercial verification to larger systems. In: Yorav, K. (ed.) Hardware and Software: Verification and Testing. LNCS, vol. 4899, pp. 8–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kurshan, R.P.: Verification technology transfer. In: Grumberg, O., Veith, H. (eds.) 25 Years of Model Checking. LNCS, vol. 5000, pp. 46–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lee, C.Y.: Representations of switching circuits by binary-decision programs. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 38, 985–999 (1959) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Leveson, N.G., Turner, C.S.: An investigation of the Therac-25 accidents. IEEE Comput. 26(7), 18–41 (1993) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lions, J.L.: Ariane 5 flight 501 failure (1996). http://web.archive.org/web/20000815230639/www.esrin.esa.it/htdocs/tidc/Press/Press96/ariane5rep.html accessed 20 Oct 2013
  62. 62.
    Lohr, S.: AT&T data network fails and commerce takes a hit. The New York Times (1998). http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/15/business/at-t-data-network-fails-and-commerce-takes-a-hit.html accessed 20 Oct 2013
  63. 63.
    McMillan, K.L.: Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer Academic, Norwell (1993) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    McMillan, K.L.: Interpolation and SAT-based model checking. In: Hunt, W.A. Jr., Somenzi, F. (eds.) Proc. CAV’03. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2003) Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    McMillan, K.L., Amla, N.: Automatic abstraction without counterexamples. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) Proc. TACAS’03. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2003) Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Mead, C., Conway, L.: Introduction to VLSI Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1979) Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Naur, P.: Proof of algorithms by general snapshots. BIT 6(4), 310–316 (1966) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
  69. 69.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proc. Eighteenth FOCS, pp. 46–57. IEEE, Piscataway (1977) Google Scholar
  70. 70.
  71. 71.
    Queille, J.P., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In: Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Montanari, U. (eds.) Proc. Intl. Symp. on Programming. LNCS, vol. 137, pp. 337–351. Springer, Heidelberg (1982) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Rabin, M.O., Scott, D.: Finite automata and their decision problems. IBM J. Res. Dev. 3, 114–125 (1959) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Robinson, J.A.: Machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. J. ACM 12, 23–41 (1965) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rudin, H., West, C.: A validation technique for tightly coupled protocols. IEEE Trans. Comput. 31(7), 630–636 (1982) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Seger, C.J.H., Bryant, R.E.: Formal verification by symbolic evaluation of partially-ordered trajectories. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 6(2), 147–190 (1995) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Shannon, C.E.: The synthesis of two-terminal switching circuits. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 28, 59–98 (1949) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sterling, B.: PART ONE: crashing the system (1990). http://www.farcaster.com/sterling/part1.htm accessed 15 Sep 2015
  78. 78.
    Travis, P.: Why the AT&T network crashed. Telephony 218(4), 11 (1990). See also http://www.phworld.org/history/attcrash.htm and http://tech-insider.org/data-security/research/1990/0126.html, both accessed 15 Sep 2015 Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Turing, A.: On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 42 (1936) Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Vardi, M.: Ball and Rajamani receive 2011 CAV award. Not. Am. Math. Soc. 58(11), 1597 (2011) Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Vardi, M.Y.: From Church and Prior to PSL. In: Grumberg, O., Veith, H. (eds.) 25 Years of Model Checking. LNCS, vol. 5000, pp. 150–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In: Proc. (1st) IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pp. 322–331 (1986) Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Waxer, C.: The hidden cost of IT security. Network Security Journal (2006). http://www.networksecurityjournal.com/features/hidden-cost-of-IT-security-041607/ accessed 20 Oct 2013
  84. 84.
    West, C.: Generalized technique for communication protocol validation. IBM J. Res. Dev. 22, 393–404 (1978) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Whitehead, A.N., Russell, B.: Principia Mathematica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1910–1913) Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Yuan, J., Pixley, C., Aziz, A.: Constraint-Based Verification. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations