Results 1 - 10
of
655
Model Checking Programs
, 2003
"... The majority of work carried out in the formal methods community throughout the last three decades has (for good reasons) been devoted to special languages designed to make it easier to experiment with mechanized formal methods such as theorem provers, proof checkers and model checkers. In this pape ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 592 (63 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The majority of work carried out in the formal methods community throughout the last three decades has (for good reasons) been devoted to special languages designed to make it easier to experiment with mechanized formal methods such as theorem provers, proof checkers and model checkers. In this paper we will attempt to give convincing arguments for why we believe it is time for the formal methods community to shift some of its attention towards the analysis of programs written in modern programming languages. In keeping with this philosophy we have developed a verification and testing environment for Java, called Java PathFinder (JPF), which integrates model checking, program analysis and testing. Part of this work has consisted of building a new Java Virtual Machine that interprets Java bytecode. JPF uses state compression to handle big states, and partial order and symmetry reduction, slicing, abstraction, and runtime analysis techniques to reduce the state space. JPF has been applied to a real-time avionics operating system developed at Honeywell, illustrating an intricate error, and to a model of a spacecraft controller, illustrating the combination of abstraction, runtime analysis, and slicing with model checking.
KLEE: Unassisted and Automatic Generation of High-Coverage Tests for Complex Systems Programs
"... We present a new symbolic execution tool, KLEE, capable of automatically generating tests that achieve high coverage on a diverse set of complex and environmentally-intensive programs. We used KLEE to thoroughly check all 89 stand-alone programs in the GNU COREUTILS utility suite, which form the cor ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 557 (15 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We present a new symbolic execution tool, KLEE, capable of automatically generating tests that achieve high coverage on a diverse set of complex and environmentally-intensive programs. We used KLEE to thoroughly check all 89 stand-alone programs in the GNU COREUTILS utility suite, which form the core user-level environment installed on millions of Unix systems, and arguably are the single most heavily tested set of open-source programs in existence. KLEE-generated tests achieve high line coverage — on average over 90% per tool (median: over 94%) — and significantly beat the coverage of the developers’ own hand-written test suite. When we did the same for 75 equivalent tools in the BUSYBOX embedded system suite, results were even better, including 100 % coverage on 31 of them. We also used KLEE as a bug finding tool, applying it to 452 applications (over 430K total lines of code), where it found 56 serious bugs, including three in COREUTILS that had been missed for over 15 years. Finally, we used KLEE to crosscheck purportedly identical BUSYBOX and COREUTILS utilities, finding functional correctness errors and a myriad of inconsistencies.
Automatic predicate abstraction of C programs
- IN PROC. ACM PLDI
, 2001
"... Model checking has been widely successful in validating and debugging designs in the hardware and protocol domains. However, state-space explosion limits the applicability of model checking tools, so model checkers typically operate on abstractions of systems. Recently, there has been significant in ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 488 (33 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Model checking has been widely successful in validating and debugging designs in the hardware and protocol domains. However, state-space explosion limits the applicability of model checking tools, so model checkers typically operate on abstractions of systems. Recently, there has been significant interest in applying model checking to software. For infinite-state systems like software, abstraction is even more critical. Techniques for abstracting software are a prerequisite to making software model checking a reality. We present the first algorithm to automatically construct a predicate abstraction of programs written in an industrial programming language such as C, and its implementation in a tool-- C2bp. The C2bp tool is part of the SLAM toolkit, which uses a combination of predicate abstraction, model checking, symbolic reasoning, and iterative refinement to statically check temporal safety properties of programs. Predicate abstraction of software has many applications, including detecting program errors, synthesizing program invariants, and improving the precision of program analyses through predicate sensitivity. We discuss our experience applying the C2bp predicate abstraction tool to a variety of problems, ranging from checking that list-manipulating code preserves heap invariants to finding errors in Windows NT device drivers.
Automatically validating temporal safety properties of interfaces
, 2001
"... We present a process for validating temporal safety properties of software that uses a well-defined interface. The process requires only that the user state the property of interest. It then automatically creates abstractions of C code using iterative refinement, based on the given property. The pro ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 433 (21 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We present a process for validating temporal safety properties of software that uses a well-defined interface. The process requires only that the user state the property of interest. It then automatically creates abstractions of C code using iterative refinement, based on the given property. The process is realized in the SLAM toolkit, which consists of a model checker, predicate abstraction tool and predicate discovery tool. We have applied the SLAM toolkit to a number of Windows NT device drivers to validate critical safety properties such as correct locking behavior. We have found that the process converges on a set of predicates powerful enough to validate properties in just a few iterations. 1 Introduction Large-scale software has many components built by many programmers. Integration testing of these components is impossible or ineffective at best. Property checking of interface usage provides a way to partially validate such software. In this approach, an interface is augmented with a set of properties that all clients of the interface should respect. An automatic analysis of the client code then validates that it meets the properties, or provides examples of execution paths that violate the properties. The benefit of such an analysis is that errors can be caught early in the coding process. We are interested in checking that a program respects a set of temporal safety properties of the interfaces it uses. Safety properties are the class of properties that state that "something bad does not happen". An example is requiring that a lock is never released without first being acquired (see [24] for a formal definition). Given a program and a safety property, we wish to either validate that the code respects the property, or find an execution path that shows how the code violates the property.
Checking system rules using system-specific, programmer-written compiler extensions
, 2000
"... ..."
(Show Context)
Bugs as Deviant Behavior: A General Approach to Inferring Errors in Systems Code
, 2001
"... A major obstacle to finding program errors in a real system is knowing what correctness rules the system must obey. These rules are often undocumented or specified in an ad hoc manner. This paper demonstrates tech-niques that automatically extract such checking information from the source code itsel ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 388 (12 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
A major obstacle to finding program errors in a real system is knowing what correctness rules the system must obey. These rules are often undocumented or specified in an ad hoc manner. This paper demonstrates tech-niques that automatically extract such checking information from the source code itself, rather than the programmer, thereby avoiding the need for a priori knowledge of system rules. The cornerstone of our approach is inferring programmer "beliefs" that we then cross-check for contradictions. Beliefs are facts implied by code: a dereference of a pointer, p, implies a belief that p is non-null, a call to "unlock(1)" implies that 1 was locked, etc. For beliefs we know the programmer must hold, such as the pointer dereference above, we immediately flag contra-
EXE: Automatically generating inputs of death
- In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS
, 2006
"... This article presents EXE, an effective bug-finding tool that automatically generates inputs that crash real code. Instead of running code on manually or randomly constructed input, EXE runs it on symbolic input initially allowed to be anything. As checked code runs, EXE tracks the constraints on ea ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 349 (21 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This article presents EXE, an effective bug-finding tool that automatically generates inputs that crash real code. Instead of running code on manually or randomly constructed input, EXE runs it on symbolic input initially allowed to be anything. As checked code runs, EXE tracks the constraints on each symbolic (i.e., input-derived) memory location. If a statement uses a symbolic value, EXE does not run it, but instead adds it as an input-constraint; all other statements run as usual. If code conditionally checks a symbolic expression, EXE forks execution, constraining the expression to be true on the true branch and false on the other. Because EXE reasons about all possible values on a path, it has much more power than a traditional runtime tool: (1) it can force execution down any feasible program path and (2) at dangerous operations (e.g., a pointer dereference), it detects if the current path constraints allow any value that causes a bug. When a path terminates or hits a bug, EXE automatically generates a test case by solving the current path constraints to find concrete values using its own co-designed constraint solver, STP. Because EXE’s constraints have no approximations, feeding this concrete input to an uninstrumented version of the checked code will cause it to follow the same path and hit the same bug (assuming deterministic code).
RacerX: Effective, Static Detection of Race Conditions and Deadlocks
- SOSP'03
, 2003
"... This paper describes RacerX, a static tool that uses flowsensitive, interprocedural analysis to detect both race conditions and deadlocks. It is explicitly designed to find errors in large, complex multithreaded systems. It aggressively infers checking information such as which locks protect which o ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 341 (2 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This paper describes RacerX, a static tool that uses flowsensitive, interprocedural analysis to detect both race conditions and deadlocks. It is explicitly designed to find errors in large, complex multithreaded systems. It aggressively infers checking information such as which locks protect which operations, which code contexts are multithreaded, and which shared accesses are dangerous. It tracks a set of code features which it uses to sort errors both from most to least severe. It uses novel techniques to counter the impact of analysis mistakes. The tool is fast, requiring between 2-14 minutes to analyze a 1.8 million line system. We have applied it to Linux, FreeBSD, and a large commercial code base, finding serious errors in all of them.
Korat: Automated testing based on Java predicates
- IN PROC. INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON SOFTWARE TESTING AND ANALYSIS (ISSTA
, 2002
"... This paper presents Korat, a novel framework for automated testing of Java programs. Given a formal specification for a method, Korat uses the method precondition to automatically generate all nonisomorphic test cases bounded by a given size. Korat then executes the method on each of these test case ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 331 (53 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This paper presents Korat, a novel framework for automated testing of Java programs. Given a formal specification for a method, Korat uses the method precondition to automatically generate all nonisomorphic test cases bounded by a given size. Korat then executes the method on each of these test cases, and uses the method postcondition as a test oracle to check the correctness of each output. To generate test cases for a method, Korat constructs a Java predicate (i.e., a method that returns a boolean) from the method’s precondition. The heart of Korat is a technique for automatic test case generation: given a predicate and a bound on the size of its inputs, Korat generates all nonisomorphic inputs for which the predicate returns true. Korat exhaustively explores the input space of the predicate but does so efficiently by monitoring the predicate’s executions and pruning large portions of the search space. This paper illustrates the use of Korat for testing several data structures, including some from the Java Collections Framework. The experimental results show that it is feasible to generate test cases from Java predicates, even when the search space for inputs is very large. This paper also compares Korat with a testing framework based on declarative specifications. Contrary to our initial expectation, the experiments show that Korat generates test cases much faster than the declarative framework.
Generalized Symbolic Execution for Model Checking and Testing
, 2003
"... Modern software systems, which often are concurrent and manipulate complex data structures must be extremely reliable. We present a novel framework based on symbolic execution, for automated checking of such systems. We provide a two-fold generalization of traditional symbolic execution based ap ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 232 (52 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Modern software systems, which often are concurrent and manipulate complex data structures must be extremely reliable. We present a novel framework based on symbolic execution, for automated checking of such systems. We provide a two-fold generalization of traditional symbolic execution based approaches. First, we de ne a source to source translation to instrument a program, which enables standard model checkers to perform symbolic execution of the program. Second, we give a novel symbolic execution algorithm that handles dynamically allocated structures (e.g., lists and trees), method preconditions (e.g., acyclicity), data (e.g., integers and strings) and concurrency. The program instrumentation enables a model checker to automatically explore dierent program heap con gurations and manipulate logical formulae on program data (using a decision procedure). We illustrate two applications of our framework: checking correctness of multi-threaded programs that take inputs from unbounded domains with complex structure and generation of non-isomorphic test inputs that satisfy a testing criterion.
