Integrated Reasoning and Proof Choice Point Selection in the Jahob System – Mechanisms for Program Survival

  • Martin Rinard
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5663)


In recent years researchers have developed a wide range of powerful automated reasoning systems. We have leveraged these systems to build Jahob, a program specification, analysis, and verification system. In contrast to many such systems, which use a monolithic reasoning approach, Jahob provides a general integrated reasoning framework, which enables multiple automated reasoning systems to work together to prove the desired program correctness properties.

We have used Jahob to prove the full functional correctness of a collection of linked data structure implementations. The automated reasoning systems are able to automatically perform the vast majority of the reasoning steps required for this verification. But there are some complex verification conditions that they fail to prove. We have therefore developed a proof language, integrated into the underlying imperative Java programming language, that developers can use to control key choice points in the proof search space. Once the developer has resolved these choice points, the automated reasoning systems are able to complete the verification. This approach appropriately leverages both the developer’s insight into the high-level structure of the proof and the ability of the automated reasoning systems to perform the mechanical steps required to prove the verification conditions.

Building on Jahob’s success with this challenging program verification problem, we contemplate the possibility of verifying the complete absence of fatal errors in large software systems. We envision combining simple techniques that analyze the vast majority of the program with heavyweight techniques that analyze those more sophisticated parts of the program that may require arbitrarily sophisticated reasoning. Modularity mechanisms such as abstract data types enable the sound division of the program for this purpose. The goal is not a completely correct program, but a program that can survive any remaining errors to continue to provide acceptable service.


Reasoning System Memory Error Choice Point Abstract Data Type Program Language Design 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Demsky, B., Rinard, M.: Data structure repair using goal-directed reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Software Engineering (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rinard, M.: Acceptability-oriented computing. In: 2003 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications Companion (OOPSLA 2003 Companion) Onwards! Session (October 2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rinard, M., Cadar, C., Nguyen, H.H.: Exploring the acceptability envelope. In: 2005 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications Companion (OOPSLA 2005 Companion) Onwards! Session (October 2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rinard, M., Cadar, C., Dumitran, D., Roy, D.M., Leu, T., William, S., Beebee, J.: Enhancing server availability and security through failure-oblivious computing. In: Proceeding of 6th Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation (OSDI 2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rinard, M., Cadar, C., Dumitran, D., Roy, D.M., Leu, T.: A dynamic technique for eliminating buffer overflow vulnerabilities (and other memory errors). In: Proceedings of the 2004 Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Demsky, B., Rinard, M.: Automatic detection and repair of errors in data structures. In: Proc. 18th Annual ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Demsky, B., Rinard, M.: Static specification analysis for termination of specification-based data structure repair. In: IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zee, K., Kuncak, V., Rinard, M.: Full functional verification of linked data structures. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2008 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2008) (June 2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zee, K., Kuncak, V., Rinard, M.: An integrated proof language for imperative programs. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2009 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2009) (June 2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuncak, V.: Modular Data Structure Verification. PhD thesis, EECS Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (February 2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weidenbach, C.: Combining superposition, sorts and splitting. In: Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, vol. II, pp. 1965–2013. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schulz, S.: E – A Brainiac Theorem Prover. Journal of AI Communications 15(2/3), 111–126 (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barrett, C., Tinelli, C.: CVC3. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 298–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ge, Y., Barrett, C., Tinelli, C.: Solving quantified verification conditions using satisfiability modulo theories. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) CADE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4603, pp. 167–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Moura, L.M., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Efficient E-matching for SMT solvers. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) CADE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4603, pp. 183–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Henriksen, J., Jensen, J., Jørgensen, M., Klarlund, N., Paige, B., Rauhe, T., Sandholm, A.: Mona: Monadic second-order logic in practice. In: Brinksma, E., Steffen, B., Cleaveland, W.R., Larsen, K.G., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS 1995. LNCS, vol. 1019. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ranise, S., Tinelli, C.: The SMT-LIB Standard: Version 1.2. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, The University of Iowa (2006),
  19. 19.
    Kuncak, V., Nguyen, H.H., Rinard, M.: Deciding Boolean Algebra with Presburger Arithmetic. J. of Automated Reasoning (2006),
  20. 20.
    Kuncak, V., Rinard, M.: Towards efficient satisfiability checking for Boolean Algebra with Presburger Arithmetic. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) CADE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4603, pp. 215–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL: A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. LNCS, vol. 2283. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bertot, Y., Castéran, P.: Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development–Coq’Art: The Calculus of Inductive Constructions. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Witchel, E., Rhee, J., Asanović, K.: Mondrix: Memory isolation for linux using mondriaan memory protection. In: 20th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP-20) (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nguyen, H.H., Rinard, M.: Detecting and eliminating memory leaks using cyclic memory allocation. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Memory Management (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lam, P., Kuncak, V., Rinard, M.: Cross-cutting techniques in program specification and analysis. In: 4th International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD 2005) (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuncak, V., Lam, P., Zee, K., Rinard, M.: Modular pluggable analyses for data structure consistency. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 32(12) (December 2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lam, P., Kuncak, V., Rinard, M.: Generalized typestate checking for data structure consistency. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) VMCAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3385, pp. 430–447. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lam, P.: The Hob System for Verifying Software Design Properties. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (February 2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cook, B., Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Termination proofs for systems code. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2006 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2006) (June 2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Papi, M.M., Ali, M., Correa Jr., T.L., Perkins, J.H., Ernst, M.D.: Practical pluggable types for java. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, Seattle, WA (July 2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rugina, R., Rinard, M.C.: Symbolic bounds analysis of pointers, array indices, and accessed memory regions. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 27(2) (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shaham, R., Kolodner, E., Sagiv, S.: Automatic removal of array memory leaks in java. In: Watt, D.A. (ed.) CC 2000. LNCS, vol. 1781, p. 50. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Whaley, J., Rinard, M.: Compositional pointer and escape analysis for Java programs. In: OOPSLA, Denver (November 1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Rinard
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence LaboratoryMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge

Personalised recommendations