Abstract
Static verification traditionally produces yes/no answers. It either provides a proof that a piece of code meets a property, or a counterexample showing that the property can be violated. Hence, the progress of static verification is hard to measure. Unlike in testing, where coverage metrics can be used to track progress, static verification does not provide any intermediate result until the proof of correctness can be computed. This is in particular problematic because of the inevitable incompleteness of static verifiers.
To overcome this, we propose a gradual verification approach, GraVy. For a given piece of Java code, GraVy partitions the statements into those that are unreachable, or from which exceptional termination is impossible, inevitable, or possible. Further analysis can then focus on the latter case. That is, even though some statements still may terminate exceptionally, GraVy still computes a partial result. This allows us to measure the progress of static verification.We present an implementation of GraVy and evaluate it on several open source projects.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Arlt, S., Liu, Z., Schäf, M.: Reconstructing paths for reachable code. In: Groves, L., Sun, J. (eds.) ICFEM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8144, pp. 431–446. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Arlt, S., Rümmer, P., Schäf, M.: Joogie: From java through jimple to boogie. In: SOAP. ACM (2013)
Arlt, S., Rümmer, P., Schäf, M.: A theory for control-flow graph exploration. In: Van Hung, D., Ogawa, M. (eds.) ATVA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8172, pp. 506–515. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
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)
Bertolini, C., Schäf, M., Schweitzer, P.: Infeasible code detection. In: Joshi, R., Müller, P., Podelski, A. (eds.) VSTTE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7152, pp. 310–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Cohen, E., Dahlweid, M., Hillebrand, M., Leinenbach, D., Moskal, M., Santen, T., Schulte, W., Tobies, S.: VCC: A practical system for verifying concurrent C. In: Berghofer, S., Nipkow, T., Urban, C., Wenzel, M. (eds.) TPHOLs 2009. LNCS, vol. 5674, pp. 23–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Cok, D.R.: OpenJML: JML for java 7 by extending openJDK. In: Bobaru, M., Havelund, K., Holzmann, G.J., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6617, pp. 472–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Cousot, P., Cousot, R., Fähndrich, M., Logozzo, F.: Automatic inference of necessary preconditions. In: Giacobazzi, R., Berdine, J., Mastroeni, I. (eds.) VMCAI 2013. LNCS, vol. 7737, pp. 128–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Cuoq, P., Kirchner, F., Kosmatov, N., Prevosto, V., Signoles, J., Yakobowski, B.: Frama-c - a software analysis perspective. In: Eleftherakis, G., Hinchey, M., Holcombe, M. (eds.) SEFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7504, pp. 233–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Engler, D., Chen, D.Y., Hallem, S., Chou, A., Chelf, B.: Bugs as deviant behavior: A general approach to inferring errors in systems code. In: SOSP (2001)
Fähndrich, M., Logozzo, F.: Static contract checking with abstract interpretation. In: Beckert, B., Marché, C. (eds.) FoVeOOS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6528, pp. 10–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Flanagan, C., Leino, K.R.M., Lillibridge, M., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B., Stata, R.: Extended static checking for java. SIGPLAN Not., 234–245 (2002)
Godefroid, P., Nori, A.V., Rajamani, S.K., Tetali, S.: Compositional must program analysis: Unleashing the power of alternation. In: POPL, pp. 43–56 (2010)
Khurshid, S., Păsăreanu, C.S., Visser, W.: Generalized symbolic execution for model checking and testing. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 553–568. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Leino, K.R.M.: Efficient weakest preconditions. Inf. Process. Lett., 281–288 (2005)
Rakamarić, Z., Hu, A.J.: A scalable memory model for low-level code. In: Jones, N.D., Müller-Olm, M. (eds.) VMCAI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5403, pp. 290–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Rümmer, P.: A constraint sequent calculus for first-order logic with linear integer arithmetic. In: Cervesato, I., Veith, H., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5330, pp. 274–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Tillmann, N., Schulte, W.: Parameterized unit tests. In: ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 253–262 (2005)
Tomb, A., Flanagan, C.: Detecting inconsistencies via universal reachability analysis. In: ISSTA, pp. 287–297 (2012)
Vallée-Rai, R., Hendren, L., Sundaresan, V., Lam, P., Gagnon, E., Co, P.: Soot - A Java Optimization Framework. In: CASCON 1999, pp. 125–135 (1999)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Arlt, S., Rubio-González, C., Rümmer, P., Schäf, M., Shankar, N. (2014). The Gradual Verifier. In: Badger, J.M., Rozier, K.Y. (eds) NASA Formal Methods. NFM 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8430. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06200-6_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06200-6_27
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06199-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06200-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)