F-Soft: Software Verification Platform

Ivančić, Franjo; Yang, Zijiang; Ganai, Malay K.; Gupta, Aarti; Shlyakhter, Ilya; Ashar, Pranav

doi:10.1007/11513988_31

Cited by 88 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite being an important area with several applications, state-of-the-art software verification tools, such as ARMC [34], Blast [20,21], CPAchecker [9], FSoft [22], HSF [15], Impact [28], and Slam [3], are unable to prove equivalence of most programs containing loops. These tools are usually not able to automatically derive sufficiently strong loop invariants to complete equivalence proofs of looping programs, even if just considering the theory of integer arithmetic, let alone the combined theory of uninterpreted function symbols and integer arithmetic (UF+IA).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic Equivalence Checking of UF+IA Programs

Lopes

Monteiro

2013

Model Checking Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Proving the equivalence of programs has several important applications, including algorithm recognition, regression checking, compiler optimization verification, and information flow checking. Despite being a topic with so many important applications, program equivalence checking has seen little advances over the past decades due to its inherent (high) complexity. In this paper, we propose, to the best of our knowledge, the first algorithm for the automatic verification of partial equivalence of two programs over the combined theory of uninterpreted function symbols and integer arithmetic (UF+IA). The proposed algorithm supports, in particular, programs with nested loops. The crux of the technique is a transformation of uninterpreted functions (UFs) applications into integer polynomials, which enables the summarization of loops with UF applications using recurrences. The equivalence checking algorithm then proceeds on loop-free, integer only programs. We implemented the proposed technique in CORK, a tool that automatically verifies the correctness of compiler optimizations, and we show that it can prove more optimizations correct than state-of-the-art techniques.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic Equivalence Checking of UF+IA Programs

Lopes

Monteiro

2013

Model Checking Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ESP's technique is a heuristic and sometimes fails to compute the best path-sensitive condition. Another example of an incomplete system is F-Soft [17]. F-Soft unrolls recursive functions a fixed number of times, resulting in a loss of precision beyond some predetermined recursion depth of k. In contrast, our approach does not impose any limit on the recursion depth and therefore does not lose completeness for programs with recursion.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sound, complete and scalable path-sensitive analysis

Dillig

Aiken

2008

Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a new, precise technique for fully path-and contextsensitive program analysis. Our technique exploits two observations: First, using quantified, recursive formulas, path-and contextsensitive conditions for many program properties can be expressed exactly. To compute a closed form solution to such recursive constraints, we differentiate between observable and unobservable variables, the latter of which are existentially quantified in our approach. Using the insight that unobservable variables can be eliminated outside a certain scope, our technique computes satisfiabilityand validity-preserving closed-form solutions to the original recursive constraints. We prove the solution is as precise as the original system for answering may and must queries as well as being small in practice, allowing our technique to scale to the entire Linux kernel, a program with over 6 million lines of code.

show abstract

“…In our software modeling approach [14,15], C programs are first preprocessed through source code rewriting to remove complex control structures and expressions. After that, only bounded integer variables, assignment statements and simple arithmetic expressions remain.…”

Section: Software Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%