Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Efficient Verification of Sequential and Concurrent C Programs

  • Published:
Formal Methods in System Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There has been considerable progress in the domain of software verification over the last few years. This advancement has been driven, to a large extent, by the emergence of powerful yet automated abstraction techniques such as predicate abstraction. However, the state-space explosion problem in model checking remains the chief obstacle to the practical verification of real-world distributed systems. Even in the case of purely sequential programs, a crucial requirement to make predicate abstraction effective is to use as few predicates as possible. This is because, in the worst case, the state-space of the abstraction generated (and consequently the time and memory complexity of the abstraction process) is exponential in the number of predicates involved. In addition, for concurrent programs, the number of reachable states could grow exponentially with the number of components.

We attempt to address these issues in the context of verifying concurrent (message-passing) C programs against safety specifications. More specifically, we present a fully automated compositional framework which combines two orthogonal abstraction techniques (predicate abstraction for data and action-guided abstraction for events) within a counterexample-guided abstraction refinement scheme. In this way, our algorithm incrementally increases the granularity of the abstractions until the specification is either established or refuted. Additionally, a key feature of our approach is that if a property can be proved to hold or not hold based on a given finite set of predicates \(\mathcal{P}\), the predicate refinement procedure we propose in this article finds automatically a minimal subset of \(\mathcal{P}\) that is sufficient for the proof. This, along with our explicit use of compositionality, delays the onset of state-space explosion for as long as possible. We describe our approach in detail, and report on some very encouraging experimental results obtained with our tool MAGIC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. "BLAST website," http://www–cad.eecs.berkeley.edu/~rupak/blast.

  2. "CIL website," http://manju.cs.berkeley.edu/cil.

  3. "ESC–Java website," http://www.research.compaq.com/SRC/esc.

  4. "Grammatech, Inc.," http://www.grammatech.com.

  5. "Java PathFinder website," http://ase.arc.nasa.gov/visser/jpf.

  6. "MAGIC website," http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~chaki/magic.

  7. "SLAM website," http://research.microsoft.com/slam.

  8. "SPIN website," http://spinroot.com/spin/whatispin.html.

  9. F. Aloul, A. Ramani, I. Markov, and K. Sakallah, "PBS: A backtrack search pseudo Boolean solver," in Symposium on the Theory and Applications os Satisfiability Testing (SAT), 2002, pp. 346–353.

  10. L. Anderson, "Program analysis and specialization for the C programming language," Ph.D. thesis, Datalogisk Intitut, Univ. of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  11. T. Ball, R. Majumdar, T.D. Millstein, and S.K. Rajamani, "Automatic predicate abstraction of C programs," in SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, 2001, pp. 203–213.

  12. T. Ball and S.K. Rajamani, "Automatically validating temporal safety properties of interfaces," in Proceedings of SPIN, Vol. 2057, 2001, pp. 103–122.

    Google Scholar 

  13. T. Ball and S.K. Rajamani, "Generating abstract explanations of spurious counterexamples in C programs," Technical Report MSR–TR–2002–09, Microsoft Research, Redmond, 2002.

  14. S. Bensalem, Y. Lakhnech, and S. Owre, "Computing abstractions of infinite state systems compositionally and automatically," in Proceedings of CAV, Vol. 1427, 1998, pp. 319–331.

    Google Scholar 

  15. S. Chaki, E. Clarke, A. Groce, and O. Strichman, "Predicate abstraction with minimum predicates," in Proceedings of CHARME, 2003. To appear.

  16. S. Chaki, E.M. Clarke, A. Groce, S. Jha, and H. Veith, "Modular verification of software components in C," in Proceedings of ICSE, 2003, pp. 385–395.

  17. S. Chaki, J. Ouaknine, K. Yorav, and E. Clarke, "Automated compositional abstraction refinement for concurrent C programs: A two–level approach," in Proceedings of SoftMC, 2003.

  18. E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D. Peled, Model Checking, MIT Press, 1999.

  19. E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, M. Talupur, and D. Wang, "Making predicate abstraction efficient: Eliminating redundant predicates," in Proceedings of Computer Aided Verification (CAV), 2003.

  20. E. Clarke, A. Gupta, J. Kukula, and O. Strichman, "SAT based abstraction–Refinement using ILP and machine learning techniques," in E. Brinksma and K. Larsen (Eds.), Proceedings of CAV, VOl. 2404 of LNCS, Copenhagen, Denmark, Springer, 2002, pp. 265–279.

  21. E.M. Clarke and E.A. Emerson, "Synthesis of synchronization skeletons from branching time temporal logic," in Proceedings of the Workshop on Logics of Programs, Vol. 131, 1982, pp. 52–71.

    Google Scholar 

  22. E.M. Clarke, E.A. Emerson, and A.P. Sistla, "Automatic verification of finite–state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications," ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and System (TOPLAS), Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 244–263, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  23. E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, and H. Veith, "Counterexample–guided abstraction refinement," in Proceedings of CAV, Vol. 1855, 2000, pp. 154–169.

    Google Scholar 

  24. E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D.E. Long, "Model checking and abstraction," in Proceedings of TOPLAS, 1994, pp. 1512–1542.

  25. J.M. Cobleigh, D. Giannakopoulou, and C.S. Pasareanu, "Learning assumptions for compositional verification," in Proceedings of TACAS, Vol. 2619, 2003, pp. 331–346.

    Google Scholar 

  26. M. Colón and T.E. Uribe, "Generating finite–state abstractions of reactive systems using decision procedures," in Proceedings of CAV, 1998, pp. 293–304.

  27. J.C. Corbett, M.B. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, S. Laubach, C.S. Pasareanu, Robby, and H. Zheng, "Bandera: Extracting finite–state models from Java source code," in Proceedings of ICSE, 2000, pp. 439–448.

  28. P. Cousot and R. Cousot, "Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints," in Proceedings of the SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Languages, 1977, pp. 238–252.

  29. D. Dams and K.S. Namjoshi, "Shape analysis through predicate abstraction and model checking," in Proceedings of VMCAI, Vol. 2575, 2003.

  30. S. Das, D.L. Dill, and S. Park, "Experience with predicate abstraction," in Computer Aided Verification, 1999, pp. 160–171.

  31. E.W. Dijkstra, "A simple axiomatic basis for programming language constructs," Lecture notes from the International Summer School on Structured Programming and Programmed Structures, 1973.

  32. M.B. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C.S. Pasareanu, H. Zheng, and W. Visser, "Tool–supported program abstraction for finite–state verification," in International Conference on Software Engineering, 2001, pp. 177–187.

  33. D. Engler, B. Chelf, A. Chou, and S. Hallem, "Checking system rules using system–specific, programmerwritten compiler extensions," in Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, 2000.

  34. S. Graf and H. Saidi, "Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS," in O. Grumberg (Ed.), Computer Aided Verification, Vol. 1254, 1997, pp. 72–83.

  35. K. Havelund and T. Pressburger, "Model checking JAVA programs using JAVA pathfinder," International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, Vol. 2, No.4, pp. 366–381, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  36. T.A. Henzinger, R. Jhala, R. Majumdar, and S. Qadeer, "Thread–modular abstraction refinement," in Proceedings of CAV, 2003 (to appear).

  37. T.A. Henzinger, R. Jhala, R. Majumdar, and G. Sutre, "Lazy abstraction," in Proceedings of POPL, 2002, pp. 58–70.

  38. T.A. Henzinger, S. Qadeer, and S.K. Rajamani, "Decomposing refinement proofs using assume–guarantee reasoning," in Proceedings of ICCAD, 2000, pp. 245–252.

  39. C.A.R. Hoare, "An axiomatic basis for computer programming," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 12, No. 10, pp. 576–580, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  40. C.A.R. Hoare, Communicating Sequential Processes, Prentice Hall, 1985.

  41. R.P. Kurshan, "Analysis of discrete event coordination," in Proceedings REX Workshop 89, Vol. 430, 1989, pp. 414–453.

    Google Scholar 

  42. R.P. Kurshan, Computer–Aided Verification of Coordinating Processes: The Automata–Theoretic Approach. Princeton University Press, 1994.

  43. Y. Lakhnech, S. Bensalem, S. Berezin, and S. Owre, "Incremental verification by abstraction," in Proceedings of TACAS, Vol. 2031, 2001, pp. 98–112.

    Google Scholar 

  44. K.L. McMillan, "A compositional rule for hardware design refinement," in Proceedings of CAV, Vol. 1254, 1997, pp. 24–35.

    Google Scholar 

  45. R. Milner, Communication and Concurrency. Prentice–Hall International, London, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  46. K.S. Namjoshi and R.P. Kurshan, "Syntactic program transformations for automatic abstraction," in Proceedings of CAV, Vol. 1855, 2000, pp. 435–449.

    Google Scholar 

  47. G. Naumovich, L.A. Clarke, L.J. Osterweil, and M.B. Dwyer, "Verification of concurrent software with FLAVERS," in Proceedings of ICSE, 1997, pp. 594–595.

  48. G. Nelson, Techniques for Program Verification. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 1980.

  49. R. Paige and R.E. Tarjan, "Three partition refinement algorithms," SIAM Journal of Computing, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 973–989, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  50. C.S. Pasareanu, M.B. Dwyer, and W. Visser, "Finding feasible counter–examples when model checking abstracted Java programs." in Proceedings of TACAS, Vol. 2031, 2001, pp. 284–298.

    Google Scholar 

  51. A.W. Roscoe, The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice–Hall International, London, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  52. S.D. Stoller, "Model–checking multi–threaded distributed Java programs," International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 71–91, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

    S. Chaki

  2. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

    E. Clarke

  3. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

    A. Groce

  4. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

    J. Ouaknine

  5. Technion, Haifa, Israel

    O. Strichman

  6. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

    K. Yorav

Authors
  1. S. Chaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Groce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Ouaknine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. O. Strichman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. K. Yorav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chaki, S., Clarke, E., Groce, A. et al. Efficient Verification of Sequential and Concurrent C Programs. Formal Methods in System Design 25, 129–166 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FORM.0000040026.56959.91

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FORM.0000040026.56959.91

Search

Navigation