article

Verifying safety properties using separation and heterogeneous abstractions

Authors:

G. RamalingamAuthors Info & Claims

ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 39, Issue 6

Pages 25 - 34

https://doi.org/10.1145/996893.996846

Published: 09 June 2004 Publication History

Abstract

In this paper, we show how separation (decomposing a verification problem into a collection of verification subproblems) can be used to improve the efficiency and precision of verification of safety properties. We present a simple language for specifying separation strategies for decomposing a single verification problem into a set of subproblems. (The strategy specification is distinct from the safety property specification and is specified separately.) We present a general framework of heterogeneous abstraction that allows different parts of the heap to be abstracted using different degrees of precision at different points during the analysis. We show how the goals of separation (i.e., more efficient verification) can be realized by first using a separation strategy to transform (instrument) a verification problem instance (consisting of a safety property specification and an input program), and by then utilizing heterogeneous abstraction during the verification of the transformed verification problem.

References

[1]

K. Ashcraft and D. Engler. Using programmer-written compiler extensions to catch security holes. In Proc. IEEE Symp. on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, May 2002.]]

Digital Library

[2]

T. Ball and S. K. Rajamani. Automatically validating temporal safety properties of interfaces. In SPIN 2001, LNCS 2057, pages 103--122, 2001.]]

Digital Library

[3]

J. Corbett, M. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, C. Pasareanu, Robby, S. Laubach, and H. Zheng. Bandera: Extracting finite-state models from Java source code. In Proc. Intl. Conf. on Software Eng., pages 439--448, June 2000.]]

Digital Library

[4]

J. Corbett, M. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, and Robby. Expressing checkable properties of dynamic systems: the bandera specification language. STTT, 4(1):34--56, Oct. 2002.]]

[5]

M. Das, S. Lerner, and M. Seigle. ESP: Path-sensitive program verification in polynomial time. In Proc. Conf. on Prog. Lang. Design and Impl., pages 57--68, June 2002.]]

Digital Library

[6]

R. DeLine and M. Fahndrich. Enforcing high-level protocols in low-level software. In Proc. Conf. on Prog. Lang. Design and Impl., pages 59--69, June 2001.]]

Digital Library

[7]

J. Field, D. Goyal, G. Ramalingam, and E. Yahav. Typestate verification: Abstraction techniques and complexity results. In Proc. of SAS'03, volume 2694 of LNCS, pages 439--462. Springer, June 2003.]]

Digital Library

[8]

C. Flanagan, K. R. M. Leino, M. Lillibridge, G. Nelson, J. B. Saxe, and R. Stata. Extended static checking for java. In Proc. Conf. on Prog. Lang. Design and Impl., pages 234--245, Berlin, June 2002.]]

Digital Library

[9]

J. S. Foster, T. Terauchi, and A. Aiken. Flow-sensitive type qualifiers. In Proc. Conf. on Prog. Lang. Design and Impl., pages 1--12, Berlin, June 2002.]]

Digital Library

[10]

S. Guyer and C. Lin. Client-driven pointer analysis. In Proc. of SAS'03, volume 2694 of LNCS, pages 214--236, June 2003.]]

Digital Library

[11]

T. Lev-Ami and M. Sagiv. TVLA: A framework for Kleene based static analysis. In Proc. Static Analysis Symp., volume 1824 of LNCS, pages 280--301. Springer-Verlag, 2000.]]

Digital Library

[12]

K. L. McMillan. Verification of infinite state systems by compositional model checking. In Proc. of CHARME '99, volume 1703 of LNCS, pages 219--237, 1999.]]

Digital Library

[13]

Microsoft Research. The SLAM project. http://research.microsoft.com/slam/, 2001.]]

[14]

G. Ramalingam, A. Warshavsky, J. Field, D. Goyal, and M. Sagiv. Deriving specialized program analyses for certifying component-client conformance. In Proc. Conf. on Prog. Lang. Design and Impl., volume 37, 5, pages 83--94, June 2002.]]

Digital Library

[15]

T. Reps, M. Sagiv, and A. Loginov. Finite differencing of logical formulas for static analysis. In In Proc. European Symp. on Programming, 2003.]]

[16]

N. Rinetzky and M. Sagiv. Interprocedural shape analysis for recursive programs. LNCS, 2027:133--149, 2001.]]

Digital Library

[17]

M. Sagiv, T. Reps, and R. Wilhelm. Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic. ACM Trans. on Prog. Lang. and Systems (TOPLAS), 24(3):217--298, 2002.]]

Digital Library

[18]

R. Shaham, E. Yahav, E. Kolodner, and M. Sagiv. Establishing local temporal heap safety properties with applications to compile-time memory management. In Proc. of SAS'03, volume 2694 of LNCS, pages 483--503, June 2003.]]

[19]

R. E. Strom and S. Yemini. Typestate: A programming language concept for enhancing software reliability. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 12(1):157--171, 1986.]]

Digital Library

[20]

R. Vallée-Rai, L. Hendren, V. Sundaresan, P. Lam, E. Gagnon, and P. Co. Soot - a java optimization framework. In Proc. of CASCON 1999, pages 125--135, 1999.]]

[21]

S. White, M. Fisher, R. Cattell, G. Hamilton, and M. Hapner. JDBC API tutorial and reference. Addison-Wesley, 1999.]]

Digital Library

Cited By

Bartel AKlein JLe Traon YMonperrus MBodden EHendren LLam PSherman E(2012)DexplerProceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on State of the Art in Java Program analysis10.1145/2259051.2259056(27-38)Online publication date: 14-Jun-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2259051.2259056
Wilhelm RSagiv MReps T(2009)Shape Analysis and ApplicationsThe Compiler Design Handbook10.1201/9781420043839.ch12(12-1-12-44)Online publication date: 7-Dec-2009
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420043839.ch12
Kanvar VKhedker U(2017)"What's in a name?" going beyond allocation site names in heap analysisACM SIGPLAN Notices10.1145/3156685.309226752:9(92-103)Online publication date: 18-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3156685.3092267
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Verifying safety properties using separation and heterogeneous abstractions

Recommendations

Verifying safety properties using separation and heterogeneous abstractions
PLDI '04: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2004 conference on Programming language design and implementation

In this paper, we show how separation (decomposing a verification problem into a collection of verification subproblems) can be used to improve the efficiency and precision of verification of safety properties. We present a simple language for ...
Verifying safety properties of concurrent heap-manipulating programs

We provide a parametric framework for verifying safety properties of concurrent heap-manipulating programs. The framework combines thread-scheduling information with information about the shape of the heap. This leads to verification algorithms that are ...
Efficient Model Checking of PSL Safety Properties
ACSD '10: Proceedings of the 2010 10th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design

Safety properties are an important class of properties as in the industrial use of model checking a large majority of the properties to be checked are safety properties. This work presents an efficient approach to model check safety properties expressed ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM SIGPLAN Notices

ACM SIGPLAN Notices Volume 39, Issue 6

PLDI '04

May 2004

299 pages

ISSN:0362-1340

EISSN:1558-1160

DOI:10.1145/996893

Issue’s Table of Contents

PLDI '04: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2004 conference on Programming language design and implementation
June 2004
310 pages
ISBN:1581138075
DOI:10.1145/996841
General Chair:
William Pugh
University of Maryland, College Park
,
Program Chair:
Craig Chambers
University of Washington

Copyright © 2004 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 09 June 2004

Published in SIGPLAN Volume 39, Issue 6

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

45
Total Citations
View Citations
569
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)1
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 04 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Bartel AKlein JLe Traon YMonperrus MBodden EHendren LLam PSherman E(2012)DexplerProceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on State of the Art in Java Program analysis10.1145/2259051.2259056(27-38)Online publication date: 14-Jun-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2259051.2259056
Wilhelm RSagiv MReps T(2009)Shape Analysis and ApplicationsThe Compiler Design Handbook10.1201/9781420043839.ch12(12-1-12-44)Online publication date: 7-Dec-2009
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420043839.ch12
Kanvar VKhedker U(2017)"What's in a name?" going beyond allocation site names in heap analysisACM SIGPLAN Notices10.1145/3156685.309226752:9(92-103)Online publication date: 18-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3156685.3092267
Späth JAli KBodden E(2017)IDE: efficient and precise alias-aware dataflow analysisProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/31339231:OOPSLA(1-27)Online publication date: 12-Oct-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3133923
Kanvar VKhedker UKirsch CTitzer B(2017)"What's in a name?" going beyond allocation site names in heap analysisProceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on Memory Management10.1145/3092255.3092267(92-103)Online publication date: 18-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3092255.3092267
Frumkin AFeldman YLhoták OPadon OSagiv MShoham S(2017)Property Directed Reachability for Proving Absence of Concurrent Modification ErrorsVerification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation10.1007/978-3-319-52234-0_12(209-227)Online publication date: 12-Jan-2017
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52234-0_12
Toubhans AChang BRival X(2014)An Abstract Domain Combinator for Separately Conjoining Memory AbstractionsStatic Analysis10.1007/978-3-319-10936-7_18(285-301)Online publication date: 2014
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10936-7_18
Arnold MVechev MYahav E(2011)QVMACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/2063239.206324121:1(1-35)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2063239.2063241
Shao JDeng FLiu HWang QMei H(2010)Lazy Runtime Verification for Constraints on Interacting ObjectsProceedings of the 2010 Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference10.1109/APSEC.2010.36(242-251)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/APSEC.2010.36
Wang Q(2009)An Intuitive Approach for Specifying Interface ConstraintProceedings of the 2009 Ninth International Conference on Quality Software10.1109/QSIC.2009.62(418-425)Online publication date: 24-Aug-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/QSIC.2009.62
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents