Advertisement

Detecting Fair Non-termination in Multithreaded Programs

  • Mohamed Faouzi Atig
  • Ahmed Bouajjani
  • Michael Emmi
  • Akash Lal
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7358)

Abstract

We develop compositional analysis algorithms for detecting non-termination in multithreaded programs. Our analysis explores fair and ultimately-periodic executions—i.e., those in which the infinitely-often enabled threads repeatedly execute the same sequences of actions over and over. By limiting the number of context-switches each thread is allowed along any repeating action sequence, our algorithm quickly discovers practically-arising non-terminating executions. Limiting the number of context-switches in each period leads to a compositional analysis in which we consider each thread separately, in isolation, and reduces the search for fair ultimately-periodic executions in multithreaded programs to state-reachability in sequential programs. We implement our analysis by a systematic code-to-code translation from multithreaded programs to sequential programs. By leveraging standard sequential analysis tools, our prototype tool Mutant is able to discover fair non-terminating executions in typical mutual exclusion protocols and concurrent data-structure algorithms.

Keywords

Linear Temporal Logic Sequential Program Context Switch Linear Temporal Logic Formula Multithreaded Program 
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.
Download to read the full conference paper text

References

  1. 1.
    Aftandilian, E., Guyer, S.Z., Vechev, M.T., Yahav, E.: Asynchronous assertions. In: OOPSLA 2011: Proc. 26th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, pp. 275–288. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnett, M., Chang, B.Y.E., DeLine, R., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M.: Boogie: A Modular Reusable Verifier for Object-Oriented Programs. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 364–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouajjani, A., Emmi, M., Parlato, G.: On Sequentializing Concurrent Programs. In: Yahav, E. (ed.) SAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6887, pp. 129–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cook, B., Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Termination proofs for systems code. In: PLDI 2006: Proc. ACM SIGPLAN 2006 Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 415–426. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cook, B., Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Proving thread termination. In: PLDI 2007: Proc. ACM SIGPLAN 2007 Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 320–330. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Emmi, M., Qadeer, S., Rakamarić, Z.: Delay-bounded scheduling. In: POPL 2011: Proc. 38th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 411–422. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garg, P., Madhusudan, P.: Compositionality Entails Sequentializability. In: Abdulla, P.A., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) TACAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6605, pp. 26–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gupta, A., Henzinger, T.A., Majumdar, R., Rybalchenko, A., Xu, R.G.: Proving non-termination. In: POPL 2008: Proc. 35th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 147–158. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herlihy, M., Shavit, N.: The Art of Multiprocessor Programming. Morgan Kaufmann (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kozen, D.: Lower bounds for natural proof systems. In: FOCS 1977: Proc. 18th Annual Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 254–266. IEEE Computer Society (1977)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    La Torre, S., Madhusudan, P., Parlato, G.: Reducing Context-Bounded Concurrent Reachability to Sequential Reachability. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 477–492. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    La Torre, S., Madhusudan, P., Parlato, G.: Model-Checking Parameterized Concurrent Programs Using Linear Interfaces. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 629–644. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lahiri, S.K., Qadeer, S., Rakamarić, Z.: Static and Precise Detection of Concurrency Errors in Systems Code Using SMT Solvers. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 509–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lal, A., Qadeer, S., Lahiri, S.: Corral: A Solver for Reachability Modulo Theories. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 427–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lal, A., Reps, T.W.: Reducing concurrent analysis under a context bound to sequential analysis. Formal Methods in System Design 35(1), 73–97 (2009)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morse, J., Cordeiro, L., Nicole, D., Fischer, B.: Context-Bounded Model Checking of LTL Properties for ANSI-C Software. In: Barthe, G., Pardo, A., Schneider, G. (eds.) SEFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 7041, pp. 302–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Musuvathi, M., Qadeer, S.: Iterative context bounding for systematic testing of multithreaded programs. In: PLDI 2007: Proc. ACM SIGPLAN Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 446–455. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Musuvathi, M., Qadeer, S.: Fair stateless model checking. In: PLDI 2008: Proc. ACM SIGPLAN 2008 Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 362–371. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Popeea, C., Rybalchenko, A.: Compositional Termination Proofs for Multi-threaded Programs. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 237–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Qadeer, S., Musuvathi, M., Burnim, J.: Personal communication (January 2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Qadeer, S., Rehof, J.: Context-Bounded Model Checking of Concurrent Software. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 93–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Qadeer, S., Wu, D.: KISS: Keep it simple and sequential. In: PLDI 2004: Proc. ACM SIGPLAN Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 14–24. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ramalingam, G.: Context-sensitive synchronization-sensitive analysis is undecidable. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 22(2), 416–430 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yen, H.C.: Communicating processes, scheduling, and the complexity of nondeterminism. Mathematical Systems Theory 23(1), 33–59 (1990)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Faouzi Atig
    • 1
  • Ahmed Bouajjani
    • 2
  • Michael Emmi
    • 2
  • Akash Lal
    • 3
  1. 1.Uppsala UniversitySweden
  2. 2.LIAFAUniversité Paris DiderotFrance
  3. 3.Microsoft ResearchBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper