Verification of Distributed Embedded Real-Time Systems and their Low-Level Implementations Using Timed CSP

Bartels, Björn; Glesner, Sabine

doi:10.1109/apsec.2011.52

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2006, Saabas and Uustalu [51] constructed a program logic for partial correctness. Bartels et al [6,7,5,32,33] used a derived logic with totally correct judgment formalised in Isabelle/HOL to reason about communicating unstructured code. Marti et al [40] used another formalisation in Coq to reason about MIPS assembly in a minimal OS.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hoare-Style Logic for Unstructured Programs

Lundberg

Guanciale

Lindner

et al. 2020

Software Engineering and Formal Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The approach in [BJ14] focuses on a smallstep and a bigstep operational semantics based on which a compositional proof calculus is built. We used similar semantics in [BG11] to show correspondence between unstructured code and (Timed) CSP processes. We used events as observation points, but did not consider actual communication.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refinement-Based Verification of Communicating Unstructured Code

Jähnig

Göthel

Glesner

2016

Software Engineering and Formal Methods

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formal model refinement aims at preserving safety and liveness properties of models. However, there is usually a verification gap between model and executed code, especially if concurrent processes are involved. The reason for this is that a manual implementation and further code optimizations can introduce implementation errors. In this paper, we present a framework that allows for formally proving a failures refinement between a CSP specification and its low-level implementation. The implementation is given in a generic unstructured language with gotos and an abstract communication instruction. We provide a failures-based denotational semantics of it with an appropriate Hoare calculus. Since failures-based refinement is compositional w.r.t. parallel composition of concurrent components and preserves safety and liveness properties, this contributes to reducing the verification gap between high-level specifications and their low-level implementations.

show abstract

“…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. In [1] we used events as observation points, but did not consider actual communication.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used similar semantics in [1] to show correspondence between unstructured code and (Timed) CSP processes. In [1] we used events as observation points, but did not consider actual communication. In addition to considering also communication, we aim in future at relating unstructured code and CSP processes based on our denotational semantics, which facilitates refinement-based verification instead of bisimulation equivalence as used in [1].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Verification of Distributed Embedded Real-Time Systems and their Low-Level Implementations Using Timed CSP

Cited by 8 publications

References 10 publications

Hoare-Style Logic for Unstructured Programs

Hoare-Style Logic for Unstructured Programs

Refinement-Based Verification of Communicating Unstructured Code

A Denotational Semantics for Communicating Unstructured Code

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About