Abstract
This ISoLA track is concerned with methods for the evaluation and comparison of analysis and verification techniques: we discuss conservative static-analysis and verification tools, as well as discuss and evaluate state-of-the-art approaches. As developers of conservative static-analysis tools aim at reducing the false-alarm rate, developers of verification tools aim at reducing the resource consumption when verifying program properties, that is, within a shorter period of time and with lower memory requirements, but still provide a definitive answer whether a program satisfies a specification or not, avoiding to report false alarms.
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
References
Bahena, V.R.: Major improvements in GCC 10.1 (2020), https://clearlinux.org/blogs-news/major-improvements-gcc-101, (urldate: 2020-07-27)
Bar-Sinai, M., Weiss, G.: Verification of liveness and safety properties of behavioral programs using BPjs. In: Proc. ISoLA 2020, LNCS. Springer (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83723-5_14
Bartocci, E., Beyer, D., Black, P.E., Fedyukovich, G., Garavel, H., Hartmanns, A., Huisman, M., Kordon, F., Nagele, J., Sighireanu, M., Steffen, B., Suda, M., Sutcliffe, G., Weber, T., Yamada, A.: TOOLympics 2019: An overview of competitions in formal methods. In: Proc. TACAS (3). pp. 3–24. LNCS 11429, Springer (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_1
Beyer, D.: Software verification: 10th comparative evaluation (SV-COMP 2021). In: Proc. TACAS (2). pp. 401–422. LNCS 12652, Springer (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72013-1_24
Beyer, D., Dangl, M., Dietsch, D., Heizmann, M.: Correctness witnesses: Exchanging verification results between verifiers. In: Proc. FSE. pp. 326–337. ACM (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2950290.2950351
Beyer, D., Dangl, M., Dietsch, D., Heizmann, M., Stahlbauer, A.: Witness validation and stepwise testification across software verifiers. In: Proc. FSE. pp. 721–733. ACM (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2786805.2786867
Beyer, D., Dangl, M., Lemberger, T., Tautschnig, M.: Tests from witnesses: Execution-based validation of verification results. In: Proc. TAP. pp. 3–23. LNCS 10889, Springer (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92994-1_1
Bojanova, I., Black, P.E., Yesha, Y., Wu, Y.: The bugs framework (BF): A structured approach to express bugs. In: Proc. QRS. pp. 175–182 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/QRS.2016.29
Budde, C.E., Hartmanns, A., Klauck, M., Kretinsky, J., Parker, D., Quatmann, T., Turrini, A., Zhang, Z.: On correctness, precision, and performance in quantitative verification - QComp 2020 competition report. In: Proc. ISoLA 2020, LNCS. Springer (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83723-5_15
Gentsch, C., Krishnamurthy, R., Heinze, T.S.: Benchmarking open-source static analyzers for security testing for C. In: Proc. ISoLA 2020, LNCS. Springer (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83723-5_13
Howar, F., Isberner, M., Merten, M., Steffen, B., Beyer, D., Păsăreanu, C.S.: Rigorous examination of reactive systems. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 16(5), 457–464 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-014-0337-y
Jasper, M., Fecke, M., Steffen, B., Schordan, M., Meijer, J., Pol, J.v.d., Howar, F., Siegel, S.F.: The RERS 2017 challenge and workshop (invited paper). In: Proc. SPIN. pp. 11–20. SPIN 2017, ACM (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3092282.3098206
Jasper, M., Schlüter, M., Schmidt, D., Steffen, B.: Every component matters: Generating parallel verification benchmarks with hardness guarantees. In: Proc. ISoLA 2020, LNCS. Springer (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83723-5_16
Malcolm, D.: Static analysis in GCC 10 (2020), https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2020/03/26/static-analysis-in-gcc-10, (urldate: 2020-03-26)
Nichols, S.: GCC 10 gets security bug trap. And look what just fell into it: OpenSSL and a prod-of-death flaw in servers and apps (2020), https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/23/gcc_openssl_vulnerability, (urldate: 2020-04-23)
Sadowski, C., Aftandilian, E., Eagle, A., Miller-Cushon, L., Jaspan, C.: Lessons from building static analysis tools at Google. Commun. ACM 61(4), 58–66 (Mar 2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3188720
Acknowledgments
This work was partially performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344, Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. IM release number LLNL-CONF-814571, and was partially funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) – 418257054 (Coop).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Certain trade names and company products are mentioned in the text or identified. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), nor that they are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Schordan, M., Beyer, D., Bojanova, I. (2021). Software Verification Tools (Track Introduction). In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds) Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Tools and Trends. ISoLA 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12479. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83723-5_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83723-5_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-83722-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-83723-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)