Abstract
Formal model refinement aims at preserving safety and liveness properties of models. However, there is usually a verification gap between model and executed code, especially if concurrent processes are involved. The reason for this is that a manual implementation and further code optimizations can introduce implementation errors. In this paper, we present a framework that allows for formally proving a failures refinement between a CSP specification and its low-level implementation. The implementation is given in a generic unstructured language with gotos and an abstract communication instruction. We provide a failures-based denotational semantics of it with an appropriate Hoare calculus. Since failures-based refinement is compositional w.r.t. parallel composition of concurrent components and preserves safety and liveness properties, this contributes to reducing the verification gap between high-level specifications and their low-level implementations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
For an introduction to denotational semantics and fixpoints see, e.g., [Rey98].
References
Bartels, B., Glesner, S.: Verification of distributed embedded real-time systems and their low-level implementation using timed CSP. In: APSEC 2011, pp. 195–202. IEEE Computer Society (2011)
Bartels, B., Jähnig, N.: Mechanized, compositional verification of low-level code. In: Badger, J.M., Rozier, K.Y. (eds.) NFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8430, pp. 98–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Gibson-Robinson, T., Armstrong, P., Boulgakov, A., Roscoe, A.W.: FDR3 — a modern refinement checker for CSP. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 187–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Gardner, W.B., Gumtie, A., Carter, J.D.: Supporting selective formalism in CSP++ with process-specific storage. In: ICESS 2015, pp. 1057–1065 (2015)
Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating sequential processes. Commun. ACM 21(8), 666–677 (1978)
Jähnig, N., Göthel, T., Glesner, S.: A denotational semantics for communicating unstructured code. In: FESCA 2015. EPTCS, vol. 178, pp. 9–21 (2015)
Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: The basics. In: Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M. (eds.) Isabelle/HOL. LNCS, vol. 2283, p. 3. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Reynolds, J.C.: Theories of Programming Languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)
Schneider, S.: Concurrent and Real Time Systems: The CSP Approach. Wiley, New York (1999)
Saabas, A., Uustalu, T.: A compositional natural semantics and hoare logic for low-level languages. SOS 156(1), 151–168 (2005). Elsevier
Tews, H.: Verifying Duff’s device: a simple compositional denotational semantics for goto and computed jumps. Technical report, Technische Universität Dresden (2004)
Zwiers, J.: Compositionality, Concurrency, and Partial Correctness. LNCS, vol. 321. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Jähnig, N., Göthel, T., Glesner, S. (2016). Refinement-Based Verification of Communicating Unstructured Code. In: De Nicola, R., Kühn, E. (eds) Software Engineering and Formal Methods. SEFM 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9763. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41591-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41591-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41590-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41591-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)