Compositionality Entails Sequentializability

Garg, Pranav; Madhusudan, P.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19835-9_4

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They offer a good coverage of the core features of the C programming language as well as of the basic concurrency mechanisms. In addition, we also used two smaller benchmark collections from the literature [27,7]. For all benchmarks we unwound thread-creating loops twice.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the verification experiments, we used the 221 safe benchmarks from the SV-COMP collection as well as the 13 safe benchmarks from [27] and [7]. The total size of the benchmarks was approximately 37K lines of code.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We set a 15GB memory limit and a 900s timeout for the analysis of each benchmark. We used SeaHorn [9] (v0.1.0), 2 an LLVM-based [21] framework for verification of safety properties of programs using Horn Clause solvers; Ultimate Automizer [10] (SV-COMP16), 3 an automata-based software model checker that is implemented in the Ultimate software analysis framework; CPAchecker (v1.4 with predicate abstraction), 4 a tool for configurable software verification that supports a wide range of techniques, including predicate abstraction, and shape and value anlysis; Impara (v0.2), 5 a tool that implements an algorithm that combines a symbolic form of partial-order reduction and lazy abstraction with interpolants for concurrent programs; Satabs (v3.2), 6 a verification tool based on predicate abstraction; and Threader (SV-COMP14), 7 a tool that uses compositional reasoning with regards to the thread structure of concurrent programs based on abstraction refinement. VVT (SV-COMP16), 8 a tool that can both verify programs using IC3 and predicate abstraction also can find bugs using bounded model checking.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The only sequentialization that can be used to prove correctness of multithreaded programs is [7], but its approach is quite different from ours. It is closely related to the rely-guarantee style proofs and is aimed to avoid the cross-product of the thread-local states.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…reachability properties [7,16,17]. Its main advantage is that it separates the concurrency aspects from the rest of the verification tool design and implementation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Lazy Sequentialization for the Safety Verification of Unbounded Concurrent Programs

Nguyen

Fischer

Torre

et al. 2016

Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Lazy sequentialization has emerged as one of the most promising approaches for concurrent program analysis but the only efficient implementation given so far works just for bounded programs. This restricts the approach to bugfinding purposes. In this paper, we describe and evaluate a new lazy sequentialization translation that does not unwind loops and thus allows to analyze unbounded computations, even with an unbounded number of context switches. In connection with an appropriate sequential backend verification tool it can thus also be used for the safety verification of concurrent programs, rather than just for bug-finding. The main technical novelty of our translation is the simulation of the thread resumption in a way that does not use gotos and thus does not require that each statement is executed at most once. We have implemented this translation in the UL-CSeq tool for C99 programs that use the pthreads API. We evaluate UL-CSeq on several benchmarks, using different sequential verification backends on the sequentialized program, and show that it is more effective than previous approaches in proving the correctness of the safe benchmarks, and still remains competitive with state-of-the-art approaches for finding bugs in the unsafe benchmarks.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…reachability properties [7,16,17]. Its main advantage is that it separates the concurrency aspects from the rest of the verification tool design and implementation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Lazy Sequentialization for the Safety Verification of Unbounded Concurrent Programs

Nguyen

Fischer

Torre

et al. 2016

Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

On Sequentializing Concurrent Programs

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We propose a general framework for compositional underapproximate concurrent program analyses by reduction to sequential program analyses-so-called sequentializations. We notice the existing sequentializations-based on bounding the number of execution contexts, execution rounds, or delays from a deterministic task-schedule-rely on three key features for scalable concurrent program analyses: (i) reduction to the sequential program model, (ii) compositional reasoning to avoid expensive task-product constructions, and (iii) parameterized exploration bounds. To understand how those sequentializations can be unified and generalized, we define a general framework which preserves their key features, and in which those sequentializations are particular instances. We also identify a most general instance which considers more executions, by composing the rounds of different tasks in any order, restricted only by the unavoidable program and task-creation causality orders. In fact, we show this general instance is fundamentally more powerful by identifying an infinite family of state-reachability problems (to states g1, g2, . . .) which can be answered precisely with a fixed exploration bound, whereas the existing sequentializations require an increasing bound k to reach each g k . Our framework applies to a general class of shared-memory concurrent programs, with dynamic task-creation and arbitrary preemption.

show abstract

Detecting Fair Non-termination in Multithreaded Programs

Atig

Bouajjani

Emmi

et al. 2012

Computer Aided Verification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop compositional analysis algorithms for detecting nontermination in multithreaded programs. Our analysis explores fair and ultimatelyperiodic executions-i.e., those in which the infinitely-often enabled threads repeatedly execute the same sequences of actions over and over. By limiting the number of context-switches each thread is allowed along any repeating action sequence, our algorithm quickly discovers practically-arising non-terminating executions. Limiting the number of context-switches in each period leads to a compositional analysis in which we consider each thread separately, in isolation, and reduces the search for fair ultimately-periodic executions in multithreaded programs to state-reachability in sequential programs. We implement our analysis by a systematic code-to-code translation from multithreaded programs to sequential programs. By leveraging standard sequential analysis tools, our prototype tool MUTANT is able to discover fair non-terminating executions in typical mutual exclusion protocols and concurrent data-structure algorithms.

show abstract

Compositionality Entails Sequentializability

Cited by 5 publications

References 17 publications

Lazy Sequentialization for the Safety Verification of Unbounded Concurrent Programs

Lazy Sequentialization for the Safety Verification of Unbounded Concurrent Programs

On Sequentializing Concurrent Programs

Detecting Fair Non-termination in Multithreaded Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About