Automated verification of Szymanski's algorithm

Gribomont, E. Pascal; Zenner, Guy G.

doi:10.1007/bfb0054187

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2. Other examples are: a different formulation of Szymanski's algorithm taken from [16], a model for reference counting in virtual memory [14], and variants of the readers/writers mutual exclusion protocol. All examples are described in the appendix.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2), and Gribomont-Zenner's mutex Fig. 2 Szymanski's algorithm [21] (left), and its parameterized model (right) algorithm from [16]. Several synchronization and reference counting examples using unbounded integer counters are also considered.…”

Section: Extensions and Other Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We add in the appendix a detailed description of several examples specified using our modeling language. These examples include the Illinois and the DEC Firefly cache coherence protocols from [13], the Bakery and Burns mutual exclusion algorithms used in [3]; a model of Szymanski's algorithm with atomicity conditions from [8,24], refinements of Szymanski's algorithm taken from [16] and [21]. In the same section, we recall the main requirement to apply the generic backward scheme for infinite-state systems based on the theory of WQOs taken from [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A lightweight regular model checking approach for parameterized systems

Delzanno

Rezine

2011

Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, we have designed a lightweight approach to regular model checking specifically designed for parameterized systems with global conditions. Our approach combines the strength of regular languages, used for representing infinite sets of configurations, with symbolic model checking and approximations. In this paper, we give a uniform presentation of several variations of a symbolic backward reachability scheme in which different classes of regular expressions are used in place of BDDs. The classification of the proposed methods is based on the precision of the resulting approximated analysis.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Extensions and Other Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A lightweight regular model checking approach for parameterized systems

Delzanno

Rezine

2011

Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Szymanski's algorithm for mutual exclusion [20,35], there are an arbitrary number of processes organized in a linear array, where the index of the array denotes the process ID. In the algorithm, the local state of each process i consists of a control state pc[i], ranging over the integers from 1 to 7 and of two boolean flags, w[i] and s[i].…”

Section: Szymanski's Algorithmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regular model checking for LTL(MSO)

Abdulla

Jönsson

Nilsson

et al. 2011

Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regular model checking is a form of symbolic model checking for parameterized and infinite-state systems whose states can be represented as words of arbitrary length over a finite alphabet, in which regular sets of words are used to represent sets of states. We present LTL(MSO), a combination of the logics monadic second-order logic (M SO) and LT L as a natural logic for expressing the temporal properties to be verified in regular model checking. In other words, LTL(MSO) is a natural specification language for both the system and the property under consideration. LTL(MSO) is a two-dimensional modal logic, where M SO is used for specifying properties of system states and transitions, and LT L is used for specifying temporal properties. In addition, the first-order quantification in M SO can be used to express properties parameterized on a position or process. We give a technique for model checking LTL(MSO), which is adapted from the automata-theoretic approach: a formula is translated to a Büchi regular transition system with a regular set of accepting states, and regular model checking techniques are used to search for models. We have implemented the technique, and show its application to a number of parameterized algorithms from the literature.

show abstract

“…Representative works of this approach include methods based on: explicit induction [EN95], network invariants that can be viewed as implicit induction [LHR97], abstraction and approximation of network invariants [CGJ95], and other methods based on abstraction [GZ98]. Other methods include those relying on "regular model-checking" (e.g., [JN00]) that overcome some of the complexity issues by employing acceleration procedures, methods based on symmetry reduction (e.g., [GS97]), or compositional methods (e.g., ([McM99]), combining automatic abstraction with finite-instantiation due to symmetry.…”

Section: I K P( I)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Liveness by Invisible Invariants

Fang

McMillan

Pnueli

et al. 2006

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The method of Invisible Invariants was developed in order to verify safety properties of parametrized systems in a fully automatic manner. In this paper, we apply the method of invisible invariant to "bounded response" properties, i.e., liveness properties of the type p =⇒ ½ q that are bounded -once a p-state is reached, it takes a bounded number of rounds (where a round is a sequence of steps in which each process has been given a chance to proceed) to reach a q-state -thus, they are essentially safety properties.With a "liveness monitor" that observes certain behavior of a system, establishing "bounded response" properties over the system is reduced to the verification of invariant properties.It is often the case that the inductive invariants for systems with "liveness monitors" contain assertions of a certain form that the original method of invisible invariant is not able to generate, nor to check inductiveness. To accommodate invariants of such forms, we extend the techniques used for invariant generation, as well as the small model theorem for validity check.

show abstract

Automated verification of Szymanski's algorithm

Cited by 14 publications

References 30 publications

A lightweight regular model checking approach for parameterized systems

A lightweight regular model checking approach for parameterized systems

Regular model checking for LTL(MSO)

Liveness by Invisible Invariants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About