Automatically validating temporal safety properties of interfaces

Ball, Thomas; Rajamani, Sriram K.

doi:10.1007/3-540-45139-0_7

Cited by 318 publications

(369 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

362

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Using static analysis this tool checks whether a C program operates according to its user written annotations. And the SLAM/SLIC combination [16] resembles our experiment even better. It is a Microsoft tool that checks safety properties of C programs without the need for users to write annotations by hand because it generates them automatically.…”

Section: Related Worksupporting

confidence: 62%

Integrating Tools for Automatic Program Verification

Hubbers

2004

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper we describe our findings after integrating several tools based upon the Java Modeling Language (JML) [1], a specification language used to annotate Java programs. The tools we consider are Daikon [2], ESC/Java [3], JML runtime assertion checker [1], and Loop/PVS tool [4]. The first one generates specifications; the others are used to verify them. We find that for the first three it is worthwhile to combine them because this is relatively easy and it improves the specifications. Combining Daikon and the Loop/PVS tool directly works in theory, but in practice it only works if the test suite is very good and hence it is not advisable.

show abstract

Section: Related Worksupporting

confidence: 62%

Integrating Tools for Automatic Program Verification

Hubbers

2004

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is important to know because many approaches to verification (e.g., [3]) are inherently associated with the generation of a counter-example path that exhibits the violation of the property of interest. Theorem 7 suggests the possibility that even the shortest error path in the program may be of size exponential in the size of the program.…”

Section: Theorem 7 If Np = Pspace Then There Does Not Exist a Polynmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A technique that has received particular attention is that of finite state or typestate verification (e.g., see [24,23,19,5,7,3,8,12,11,16,1]). In this model, objects of a given type may exist in one of several states; the operations permitted on an object depend on the state of the object, and the operations may potentially alter the state of the object.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Typestate Verification: Abstraction Techniques and Complexity Results

Field¹,

Goyal²,

Ramalingam³

et al. 2003

Static Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We consider the problem of typestate verification for shallow programs; i.e., programs where pointers from program variables to heap-allocated objects are allowed, but where heap-allocated objects may not themselves contain pointers. We prove a number of results relating the complexity of verification to the nature of the finite state machine used to specify the property. Some properties are shown to be intractable, but others which appear to be quite similar admit polynomial-time verification algorithms. While there has been much progress on many aspects of automated program verification, we are not aware of any previous work relating the difficulty of typestate verification to properties of the finite state automaton. Our results serve to provide insight into the inherent complexity of important classes of verification problems. In addition, the program abstractions used for the polynomial-time verification algorithms may be of independent interest.

show abstract

“…The SLAM tool [12] uses predicate-abstraction techniques to extract a Boolean program from C source code. One can then use Schwoon's translation [15] to obtain a PDS from a Boolean program.…”

Section: Comparision With the Predicate-abstraction Technique Of Slammentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This schema has been successfully applied to handle both pure non-concurrent (sequential) recursive programs in the tool SLAM [12], and concurrent non-recursive programs in the tools BLAST [13] and MAGIC [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verifying Concurrent Message-Passing C Programs with Recursive Calls

Chaki

Clarke

Kidd

et al. 2006

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We consider the model-checking problem for C programs with (1) data ranging over very large domains, (2) (recursive) procedure calls, and (3) concurrent parallel components that communicate via synchronizing actions. We model such programs using communicating pushdown systems, and reduce the reachability problem for this model to deciding the emptiness of the intersection of two context-free languages L 1 and L 2 . We tackle this undecidable problem using a CounterExample Guided Abstraction Refinement (CEGAR) scheme. We implemented our technique in the model checker MAGIC and found a previously unknown bug in a version of a Windows NT Bluetooth driver.

show abstract

Automatically validating temporal safety properties of interfaces

Cited by 318 publications

References 25 publications

Integrating Tools for Automatic Program Verification

Integrating Tools for Automatic Program Verification

Typestate Verification: Abstraction Techniques and Complexity Results

Verifying Concurrent Message-Passing C Programs with Recursive Calls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About