Skip to main content

On Using Results of Code-Level Bounded Model Checking in Assurance Cases

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 9923))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Software bounded model checkers (BMC) are today powerful tools to perform verification at unit level, but are not used at their potential in the safety critical context. One reason for this is that model checkers often provide only incomplete results when used on real code due to restrictions placed on the environment of the system in order to facilitate the verification. In order to use these results as evidence in an assurance case, one needs to characterize the incompleteness and mitigate the assurance deficits. In this paper we present an assurance case pattern which addresses the disciplined use of successful but possibly incomplete verification results obtained through C-level bounded model checking as evidence in certification. We propose a strategy to express the confidence in incomplete verification results by complementing them with classical testing, and to mitigate the assurance deficits with additional tests. We present our preliminary experience with using the CBMC model checker and the mbeddr environment to verify three safety-critical software components.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Introduction to TCAS II version 7.1, November 2000

    Google Scholar 

  2. International standard IEC 61508 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  3. GSN community standard version 1. Technical report, November 2011

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ayoub, A., Kim, B.G., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O.: A systematic approach to justifying sufficient confidence in software safety arguments. In: Ortmeier, F., Lipaczewski, M. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7612, pp. 305–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Basir, N., Denney, E., Fischer, B.: Constructing a safety case for automatically generated code from formal program verification information. In: NFM (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bennion, M., Habli, I.: A candid industrial evaluation of formal software verification using model checking. In: ICSE (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Keremoglu, M.E., Wendler, P.: Conditional model checking: a technique to pass information between verifiers. In: FASE (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Christakis, M., Müller, P., Wüstholz, V.: Collaborative verification and testing with explicit assumptions. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 132–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Clarke, E., Kroning, D., Lerda, F.: A tool for checking ANSI-C programs. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 168–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Czech, M., Jakobs, M.-C., Wehrheim, H.: Just test what you cannot verify!. In: Egyed, A., Schaefer, I. (eds.) FASE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9033, pp. 100–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Denney, E., Pai, G.: Evidence arguments for using formal methods in software certification. In: WoSoCer (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gotlieb, A.: TCAS software verification using constraint programming. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 27, 343 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Habli, I., Kelly, T.: A generic goal-based certification argument for the justification of formal analysis. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci 238, 27–39 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hawkins, R., Kelly, T., Knight, J., Graydon, P.: A new approach to creating clear safety arguments. In: Dale, C., Anderson, T. (eds.) Advances in Systems Safety, pp. 3–23. Springer, London (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Littlewood, B., Wright, D.: The use of multilegged arguments to increase confidence in safety claims for software-based systems: a study based on a BBN analysis of an idealized example. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 33, 347–365 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Morelos-Zaragoza, R.H.: The Art of Error Correcting Coding. Wiley, New York (2006)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Staats, M., Gay, G., Whalen, M., Heimdahl, M.: On the danger of coverage directed test case generation. In: de Lara, J., Zisman, A. (eds.) Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 409–424. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Voelter, M., Ratiu, D., Kolb, B., Schätz, B.: mbeddr: instantiating a language workbench in the embedded software domain. Autom. Softw. Eng. 20, 339–390 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007–2013 under grant agreement no610640.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmen Cârlan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cârlan, C., Ratiu, D., Schätz, B. (2016). On Using Results of Code-Level Bounded Model Checking in Assurance Cases. In: Skavhaug, A., Guiochet, J., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9923. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45480-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45480-1_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45479-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45480-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics