Abstract
Automatic verification of concurrent programs written in low-level languages like ANSI-C is an important task as multi-core architectures are gaining widespread adoption. Formal verification, although very valuable for this domain, rapidly runs into the state-explosion problem due to multiple thread interleavings. Recently, Bounded Model Checking (BMC) has been used for this purpose, which does not scale in practice. In this work, we develop a method to further constrain the search space for BMC techniques using underapproximations of data flow of shared memory and lazy demand-driven refinement of the approximation. A novel contribution of our method is that our underapproximation is guided by likely data-flow invariants mined from dynamic analysis and our refinement is based on proof-based learning. We have implemented our method in a prototype tool. Initial experiments on benchmark examples show potential performance benefit.
Keywords
- Concurrent Program Verification
- Bounded Model Checking (BMC)
- Minor Innovations
- Proof Search Space
- Local Writers
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
References
Alglave, J., Kroening, D., Tautschnig, M.: Partial orders for efficient bounded model checking of concurrent software. In: CAV (2013)
Qadeer, S., Wu, D.: KISS: keep it simple and sequential. ACM SIGPLAN (2004)
Tomasco, E., Inverso, O., Fischer, B., Torre, S., Parlato, G.: Verifying concurrent programs by memory unwinding. In: Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) TACAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 551–565. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_52
Yeolekar, A., Madhukar, K., Bhutada, D., Venkatesh, R.: Sequentialization using timestamps. In: Gopal, T.V., Jäger, G., Steila, S. (eds.) TAMC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10185, pp. 684–696. Springer, Cham (2017). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55911-7_49
Luk, C.K., Cohn, R., Muth, R., Patil, H., Klauser, A., Lowney, G., Wallace, S., Reddi, V.J., Hazelwood, K.: Pin: Building customized program analysis tools with dynamic instrumentation. ACM SIGPLAN (2005)
Shi, Y., Park, S., Yin, Z., Lu, S., Zhou, Y., Chen, W., Zheng, W.: Do I use the wrong definition?: DeFuse: definition-use invariants for detecting concurrency and sequential bugs. ACM SIGPLAN (2010)
Grumberg, O., Lerda, F., Strichman, O., Theobald, M.: Proof-guided underapproximation-widening for multi-process systems. ACM SIGPLAN (2005)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Prabhu, S., Schrammel, P., Srivas, M., Tautschnig, M., Yeolekar, A. (2017). Concurrent Program Verification with Invariant-Guided Underapproximation. In: D'Souza, D., Narayan Kumar, K. (eds) Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis. ATVA 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10482. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68167-2_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68167-2_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68166-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68167-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)