Mechanized, Compositional Verification of Low-Level Code

Bartels, Björn; Jähnig, Nils

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06200-6_8

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CUC, presented in [JGG15], is based on our previous work [BJ14] enhanced with communication capabilities. The approach in [BJ14] focuses on a smallstep and a bigstep operational semantics based on which a compositional proof calculus is built.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Software Engineering and Formal Methods

Nicola¹,

Kühn²

2016

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper we consider combining two techniques that have been effective in analyzing infinite-state systems: predicate abstraction and fixpoint approximations. Using a carefully crafted model of Airport Ground Network Control, we show that when predicate abstraction in a CEGAR loop fails to verify temporal logic properties of an infinite-state transition system, a combination of predicate abstraction with fixpoint approximations may provide improved performance for both safety and liveness property verification.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Software Engineering and Formal Methods

Nicola¹,

Kühn²

2016

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our unstructured language that we introduce in Section 4 is based on our previous work [2] enhanced with communication capabilities. The approach in [2] focuses on a smallstep and a bigstep operational semantics based on which a compositional proof calculus is built. We used similar semantics in [1] to show correspondence between unstructured code and (Timed) CSP processes.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this section, we introduce Communicating Unstructured Code (CUC), which we adapt from our previous work [2] and enhance it with a communication primitive.…”

Section: Communicating Unstructured Codementioning

confidence: 99%

“…We presented previously a compositional bigstep semantics for a low-level language without communication in [2]. In contrast, we require our extended semantics with communication to be close to the denotational CSP semantics.…”

Section: Denotational Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This approach has the advantage that a complex formal semantics of a high-level language can be avoided and tightens the gap between verified code and executed code. We choose an LLVM-like unstructured language that we previously presented in [2] because it is platform independent. In order to model communicating programs, we have included a generic instruction that allows for communication between unstructured programs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Denotational Semantics for Communicating Unstructured Code

Jähnig

Göthel

Glesner

2015

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important property of programming language semantics is that they should be compositional. However, unstructured low-level code contains goto-like commands making it hard to define a semantics that is compositional. In this paper, we follow the ideas of Saabas and Uustalu to structure low-level code. This gives us the possibility to define a compositional denotational semantics based on least fixed points to allow for the use of inductive verification methods. We capture the semantics of communication using finite traces similar to the denotations of CSP. In addition, we examine properties of this semantics and give an example that demonstrates reasoning about communication and jumps. With this semantics, we lay the foundations for a proof calculus that captures both, the semantics of unstructured low-level code and communication.Comment: In Proceedings FESCA 2015, arXiv:1503.0437

show abstract

Hoare-Style Logic for Unstructured Programs

Lundberg

Guanciale

Lindner

et al. 2020

Software Engineering and Formal Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enabling Hoare-style reasoning for low-level code is attractive since it opens the way to regain structure and modularity in a domain where structure is essentially absent. The field, however, has not yet arrived at a fully satisfactory solution, in the sense of avoiding restrictions on control flow (important for compiler optimization), controlling access to intermediate program points (important for modularity), and supporting total correctness. Proposals in the literature support some of these properties, but a solution that meets them all is yet to be found. We introduce the novel Hoare-style program logic LA, which interprets postconditions relative to program points when these are first encountered. The logic can support both partial and total correctness, derive contracts for arbitrary control flow, and allows one to freely choose decomposition strategy during verification while avoiding step-indexed approximations and global invariants. The logic can be instantiated for a variety of concrete instruction set architectures and intermediate languages. The rules of LA have been verified in the interactive theorem prover HOL4 and integrated with the toolbox HolBA for semi-automated program verification, making it applicable to the ARMv6 and ARMv8 instruction sets.

show abstract

Mechanized, Compositional Verification of Low-Level Code

Cited by 6 publications

References 6 publications

Software Engineering and Formal Methods

Software Engineering and Formal Methods

A Denotational Semantics for Communicating Unstructured Code

Hoare-Style Logic for Unstructured Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About