Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Residual Runtime Verification via Reachability Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Verified Software. Theories, Tools and Experiments. (VSTTE 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13800))

Abstract

We leverage static verification to reduce monitoring overhead when runtime verifying a property. We present a sound and efficient analysis to statically find safe execution paths in the control flow at the intra-procedural level of programs. Such paths are guaranteed to preserve the monitored property and thus can be ignored at runtime. Our analysis guides an instrumentation tool to select program points that should be observed at runtime. The monitor is left to perform residual runtime verification for parts of the program that the analysis could not statically prove safe. Our approach does not depend on dataflow analysis, thus separating the task of residual analysis from static analysis; allowing for seamless integration with many RV frameworks and development pipelines. We implement our approach within BISM, which is a recent tool for bytecode-level instrumentation of Java programs. Our experiments on the DaCapo benchmark show a reduction in instrumentation points by a factor of 2.5 on average (reaching 9), and accordingly, a reduction in the number of runtime events by a factor of 1.8 on average (reaching 6).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    This can checked with == in Java.

  2. 2.

    Implementation details and experiments can be found at https://gitlab.inria.fr/monitoring/residual-runtime-verification-with-bism.

  3. 3.

    We use Java JDK 8u251 with 16 GB maximum heap size on an Intel Core i9-9980HK (2.4 GHz. 16 GB RAM). We use the DaCapo version 9.12-bach.

References

  1. Ahrendt, W., Beckert, B., Hähnle, R., Rümmer, P., Schmitt, P.H.: Verifying object-oriented programs with key: a tutorial. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2006. LNCS, vol. 4709, pp. 70–101. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74792-5_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahrendt, W., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: A unified approach for static and runtime verification: framework and applications. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7609, pp. 312–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34026-0_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Avgustinov, P., et al.: ABC: an extensible AspectJ compiler. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development, AOSD 2005, pp. 87–98. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2005). https://doi.org/10.1145/1052898.1052906

  4. Azzopardi, S., Colombo, C., Pace, G.: Clarva: model-based residual verification of java programs. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, MODELSWARD, pp. 352–359. INSTICC, SciTePress (2020). https://doi.org/10.5220/0008966603520359

  5. Barringer, H., Falcone, Y., Havelund, K., Reger, G., Rydeheard, D.: Quantified event automata: towards expressive and efficient runtime monitors. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 68–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32759-9_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y., Francalanza, A., Reger, G.: Introduction to runtime verification. In: Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y. (eds.) Lectures on Runtime Verification. LNCS, vol. 10457, pp. 1–33. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75632-5_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Runtime verification for LTL and TLTL. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 20(4), 14:1–14:64 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2000799.2000800

  8. Blackburn, S.M., et al.: The DaCapo benchmarks: Java benchmarking development and analysis. SIGPLAN Not. 41(10), 169–190 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1167515.1167488

  9. Bodden, E., Lam, P., Hendren, L.: Clara: a framework for partially evaluating finite-state runtime monitors ahead of time. In: Barringer, H., et al. (eds.) RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418, pp. 183–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16612-9_15

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Bodden, E., Lam, P., Hendren, L.J.: Partially evaluating finite-state runtime monitors ahead of time. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 34(2), 7:1–7:52 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2220365.2220366

  11. Chen, F., Roşu, G.: Parametric trace slicing and monitoring. In: Kowalewski, S., Philippou, A. (eds.) TACAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5505, pp. 246–261. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00768-2_23

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Chimento, J.M., Ahrendt, W., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: StaRVOOrS: a tool for combined static and runtime verification of Java. In: Bartocci, E., Majumdar, R. (eds.) RV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9333, pp. 297–305. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23820-3_21

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Chimento, J.M., Ahrendt, W., Schneider, G.: Testing meets static and runtime verification. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Formal Methods in Software Engineering, FormaliSE 2018, pp. 30–39. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3193992.3194000

  14. Choi, J.D., Gupta, M., Serrano, M., Sreedhar, V.C., Midkiff, S.: Escape analysis for Java. SIGPLAN Not. 34(10), 1–19 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1145/320385.320386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dwyer, M.B., Purandare, R.: Residual dynamic typestate analysis exploiting static analysis, p. 124 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J., Mounier, L.: What can you verify and enforce at runtime? Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 14(3), 349–382 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-011-0196-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Falcone, Y., Havelund, K., Reger, G.: A tutorial on runtime verification. In: Broy, M., Peled, D.A., Kalus, G. (eds.) Engineering Dependable Software Systems. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series, D: Information and Communication Security, vol. 34, pp. 141–175. IOS Press (2013). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-207-3-141

  18. Falcone, Y., Krstić, S., Reger, G., Traytel, D.: A taxonomy for classifying runtime verification tools. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 23(2), 255–284 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-021-00609-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Havelund, K., Goldberg, A.: Verify your runs. In: Meyer, B., Woodcock, J. (eds.) VSTTE 2005. LNCS, vol. 4171, pp. 374–383. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69149-5_40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Havelund, K., Reger, G., Thoma, D., Zălinescu, E.: Monitoring events that carry data. In: Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y. (eds.) Lectures on Runtime Verification. LNCS, vol. 10457, pp. 61–102. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75632-5_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Hopcroft, J.E., Motwani, R., Ullman, J.D.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jakse, R., Falcone, Y., Méhaut, J., Pouget, K.: Interactive runtime verification - when interactive debugging meets runtime verification. In: 28th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, ISSRE 2017, Toulouse, France, 23–26 October 2017, pp. 182–193. IEEE Computer Society (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSRE.2017.19

  23. Karandikar, P., Niewerth, M., Schnoebelen, P.: On the state complexity of closures and interiors of regular languages with subwords and superwords. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 610, 91–107 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2015.09.028

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Model checking of safety properties. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 19(3), 291–314 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011254632723

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Leucker, M.: Sliding between model checking and runtime verification. In: Qadeer, S., Tasiran, S. (eds.) RV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7687, pp. 82–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35632-2_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: A brief account of runtime verification. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 78(5), 293–303 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlap.2008.08.004

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Sánchez, C., et al.: A survey of challenges for runtime verification from advanced application domains (beyond software). Formal Methods Syst. Des. 54(3), 279–335 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-019-00337-w

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Soueidi, C., Falcone, Y.: Capturing program models with BISM. In: Proceedings of the 37th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2022, pp. 1857–1861. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3477314.3507239

  29. Soueidi, C., Kassem, A., Falcone, Y.: BISM: Bytecode-Level Instrumentation for Software Monitoring. https://gitlab.inria.fr/monitoring/bism-tool

  30. Strom, R.E., Yemini, S.: Typestate: a programming language concept for enhancing software reliability. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 12(1), 157–171 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.1986.6312929

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Vallée-Rai, R., Co, P., Gagnon, E., Hendren, L., Lam, P., Sundaresan, V.: Soot - a Java bytecode optimization framework. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, CASCON 1999, p. 13. IBM Press (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wang, C., Chen, Z., Mao, X.: Optimizing Nop-shadows typestate analysis by filtering interferential configurations. In: Legay, A., Bensalem, S. (eds.) RV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8174, pp. 269–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40787-1_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang, X., Leucker, M., Dong, W.: Runtime verification with predictive semantics. In: Goodloe, A.E., Person, S. (eds.) NFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7226, pp. 418–432. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28891-3_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Inria, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LIG, 38000, Grenoble, France

    Chukri Soueidi & Yliès Falcone

Authors
  1. Chukri Soueidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yliès Falcone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chukri Soueidi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Microsoft Research, Karnataka, India

    Akash Lal

  2. Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy

    Stefano Tonetta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Soueidi, C., Falcone, Y. (2023). Residual Runtime Verification via Reachability Analysis. In: Lal, A., Tonetta, S. (eds) Verified Software. Theories, Tools and Experiments.. VSTTE 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13800. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25803-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25803-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-25802-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-25803-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation