Data Flow Analysis as a General Concept for the Transport of Verifiable Program Annotations

Amme, Wolfram; Möller, Marc-André; Adler, Philipp

doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2006.06.019

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It certifies abstract interpretation for source programs, however for constraint logic programms not C, and checks more advanced safety properties by checking if a verification condition computed from abstraction and safety specification is valid. While [26,3,4] trust the semantic correctness of data-flow analysis and abstract interpretation and we trust the CPA, [8,15] provide more foundational approaches. Proof-carrying Code from Certified Abstract Interpretation [8] also uses a reduced abstraction as certificate, but additionally provides a certifier together with a proof for correct semantics.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In principle, all three re-execute one special analysis step to check if the abstraction is a fixpoint. Lightweight Bytecode Verification [26] and Verifiable Program Annotations [4] certify data-flow analyses on bytecode level. Both keep only those elements of the abstraction which are affected by backward edges in the control flow and recompute the missing part during validation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[26,8,15,3,4], which consider certification for static program analysis. [26,3,4] only use an abstraction as certificate as we do. In principle, all three re-execute one special analysis step to check if the abstraction is a fixpoint.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar to e.g. [26,2,4], we want to remove those elements from the abstraction which are recomputed during validation. A first idea is to keep elements which are computed for program locations which join control flows.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…safety condition U and initial abstract state e0. 4 In the following, we present a systematic and in many cases automatic approach to get a certificate validator CCV for an arbitrary CPA and an arbitrary safety condition U . Our approach requires that the CPA, the safety condition and the initial abstract state use the same abstract domain D. Furthermore, we assume that the CPA is sound.…”

Section: Configurable Certificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Certification for configurable program analysis

Jakobs

Wehrheim

2014

Proceedings of the 2014 International SPIN Symposium on Model Checking of Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Configurable program analysis (CPA) is a generic concept for the formalization of different software analysis techniques in a single framework. With the tool CPAchecker, this framework allows for an easy configuration and subsequent automatic execution of analysis procedures ranging from data-flow analysis to model checking. The focus of the tool CPAchecker is thus on analysis.In this paper, we study configurability from the point of view of software certification. Certification aims at providing (via a prior analysis) a certificate of correctness for a program which is (a) tamper-proof and (b) more efficient to check for validity than a full analysis. Here, we will show how, given an analysis instance of a CPA, to construct a corresponding sound certification instance, thereby arriving at configurable program certification. We report on experiments with certification based on different analysis techniques, and in particular explain which characteristics of an underlying analysis allow us to design an efficient (in the above (b) sense) certification procedure.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Configurable Certificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Certification for configurable program analysis

Jakobs

Wehrheim

2014

Proceedings of the 2014 International SPIN Symposium on Model Checking of Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Safe, multiphase bounds check elimination in Java

Gampe¹,

Ronne²,

Niedzielski³

et al. 2010

Softw Pract Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As part of its type‐safety regime, Java's semantics require precise exceptions at runtime when programs attempt out‐of‐bound array accesses. This paper describes a Java implementation that utilizes a multiphase approach to identifying safe array accesses. This approach reduces runtime overhead by spreading the out‐of‐bounds checking effort across multiple phases of compilation and execution: production of mobile code from source code, just‐in‐time (JIT) compilation in the virtual machine, application method invocations, and the execution of individual array accesses. The code producer uses multiple passes (including common subexpression elimination, load elimination, induction variable substitution, speculation of dynamically verified invariants, and inequality constraint analysis) to identify unnecessary bounds checks and prove their redundancy. During class‐loading and JIT compilation, the virtual machine verifies the proofs, inserts code to dynamically validate speculated invariants, and generates code specialized under the assumption that the speculated invariants hold. During each runtime method invocation, the method parameters and other inputs are checked against the speculated invariants, and execution reverts to unoptimized code if the speculated invariants do not hold. The combined effect of the multiple phases is to shift the effort associated with bounds‐checking array access to phases that are executed earlier and less frequently, thus, reducing runtime overhead. Experimental results show that this approach is able to eliminate more bounds checks than prior approaches with minimal overhead during JIT compilation. These results also show the contribution of each of the passes to the overall elimination. Furthermore, this approach increased the speed at which the benchmarks executed by up to 16%. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

The effectiveness of producer‐side machine‐independent optimizations for mobile code

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Portable mobile code is often executed by a host virtual machine using just‐in‐time compilation. In this context, the compilation time in the host virtual machine is critical. This compilation time can be reduced if optimizations are performed ahead‐of‐time before distribution of the mobile code. Unfortunately, the portable nature of mobile code limits ahead‐of‐time optimizations to those that are machine‐independent. This work examines the effect of machine‐independent optimizations on the performance of mobile code applications. All experiments use the SafeTSA Format, a mobile code format that is based on Static Single Assignment Form (SSA Form). The experiments, which are performed on both the PowerPC and IA32 architectures, indicate that the effects of performing classical machine‐independent optimizations are—in fact—quite machine‐dependent. Nevertheless, the results demonstrate that applying such optimizations in a mobile code system can be beneficial. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Data Flow Analysis as a General Concept for the Transport of Verifiable Program Annotations

Cited by 7 publications

References 12 publications

Certification for configurable program analysis

Certification for configurable program analysis

Safe, multiphase bounds check elimination in Java

The effectiveness of producer‐side machine‐independent optimizations for mobile code

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About