1.7.2008 formal methods of systems specification logical specification of hard- and software prof....

24
1.7.2008 Formal Methods of Systems Specification Logical Specification of Hard- and Software Prof. Dr. Holger Schlingloff Institut für Informatik der Humboldt Universität and Fraunhofer Institut für Rechnerarchitektur und Softwaretechnik

Post on 18-Dec-2015

214 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

1.7.2008

Formal Methods of Systems SpecificationLogical Specification of Hard- and Software

Prof. Dr. Holger SchlingloffInstitut für Informatik der Humboldt Universität

and

Fraunhofer Institut für Rechnerarchitektur und Softwaretechnik

1.7.2008 Slide 2H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Assertion Languages

• OCL is an assertion language for UML

• Similar assertian languages have been defined for various programming languages Java Modeling Language (JML) for Java Spec# for C# PSL for VHDL

• General idea static analysis: try to verify the assertions without

running the program dynamic supervision: use the assertions to

influence the execution of the program

1.7.2008 Slide 3H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Example: JML

Reference: http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~leavens/JML/jmlrefman/

•using Hoare style pre- and postconditions and invariants

•specifications are added as Java annotations (comments) to the Java program can also be stored in separate specification files

//@ <JML specification>/*@ <JML specification> @*/

1.7.2008 Slide 4H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

JML Syntax

• assert  Defines a JML assertion

• requires  Defines a precondition on the method that follows

• ensures  Defines a postcondition on the method that follows

• invariant  Defines an invariant property of the class

• signals  Defines a condition on when a given exception can be thrown

by the method that follows• assignable 

Defines which fields are allowed to be assigned to by the method that follows

1.7.2008 Slide 5H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

JML expressions

• Boolean Java expressions• \result 

identifier for the return value of the method that follows

• \old(<name>)  modifier to refer to the value of variable <name>

at the time of entry into a method (OCL @pre!)

• \forall, \exists  universal and existential quantifier (for arrays etc.) range of quantification limited!

• a ==> b, a<==>b  logical implications

1.7.2008 Slide 6H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Example

public class Account { public static final int MAX_BALANCE = 1000; private int balance; private boolean isLocked = false;

//@ invariant balance >= 0 && balance <= MAX_BALANCE; //@ assignable balance; //@ ensures balance == 0; public Account() { }

//@ requires amount > 0; //@ ensures balance = \old(balance) + amount; public void deposit(int amount) { … }

//@ ensures isLocked == true; public void lockAccount() { this.isLocked = true; } }

1.7.2008 Slide 7H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Dynamic Analysis

•Generate extra code from annotations to check violations assert: check at the given statement requires: check before entering the method ensures: check at the end of the method invariant: check after each statement

- obviously, only when statement might affect expression

•Use assertions to generate JUnit test cases set preconditions, get postconditions

1.7.2008 Slide 8H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Static Analysis Tools

•Abstract interpretation tries to calculate possible values of variables sound approximation to the possible ranges e.g., i [-maxint..16], [17..21], [22..maxint]i += 1 i [-maxint..17], [18..22], [23..maxint]

•Formally, an abstraction function is a mapping from a (large) concrete domain into a (small) abstract domain; e.g., int {neg, zero, pos} operations on concrete objects are replaced by

operations on abstract objects

1.7.2008 Slide 9H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

JML Screenshot

www-sop.inria.fr/.../bcwp/img/jmlCompile.jpeg

1.7.2008 Slide 10H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Spec# and Spec Explorer

Microsoft‘s Road to Specification•Evolving algebras (Egon Börger et al.,

1990‘s) „Philosophical“ background

•ASMs and the ASML (Yuri Gurevich et al.) Theoretical background

•Spec# (Wolfram Schulte et al.) Interactive program verification

•Spec Explorer (Wolfgang Grieskamp et al.) Support for model-based testing

1.7.2008 Slide 11H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Spec# Overview

• Aiming at program verification• Based on C# (which in turn is based on C++ and Java)• Spec# is an extension of C# by non-null types, method

contracts, object invariants, and checked exceptions can be seen as a programming language of its own

• Tool support compiler

- statically enforces non-null types- emits run-time checks for method contracts and invariants- records the contracts as metadata for consumption by

downstream tools static program verifier „Boogie“

- generates logical verification conditions from a Spec# program- uses automatic theorem prover- analyzes the verification conditions to prove the correctness of

the program or find errors in it

http://www.cs.nuim.ie/~rosemary/ETAPS-SpecSharp-Tutorial.pdf

1.7.2008 Slide 12H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Use of Spec#

•Write each class containing methods and their specification together in a Spec# source file Invariants that constrain the data fields of

objects may also be included

•Run the verifier (either from IDE or command line) push button, wait (maybe long), get a list of

compilation/verification error messages Interaction with the verifier is done by

modifying the source file

1.7.2008 Slide 13H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Screenshot

• Freely available, needs MSVS .Net

Wrong inputPrecondition not

satisfied

Log messages for programmer

1.7.2008 Slide 14H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Example

// non-null argument

assume: not checked but taken as granted

assert: statically or dynamically validated

1.7.2008 Slide 15H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Swap Example

•How can the proof be performed?

1.7.2008 Slide 16H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Spec# Verification

• focus on automation of verification rather than full functional correctness of specifications No verification of liveness (termination or other temporal

eventuality properties) No arithmetic overflow checks (yet)

• Active research on extensions (e.g. comprehensions)

1.7.2008 Slide 17H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Quantifiers

•Quantification on finite domains! Verification can be expensive (search all

values)

1.7.2008 Slide 18H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Loop Invariants

• Can help the solver to reach its goal !

1.7.2008 Slide 19H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

Loop Invariants

• Can help the solver to reach its goal !

1.7.2008 Slide 20H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

1.7.2008 Slide 21H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

BoogiePL

• Simple procedural language for .Net

if (condition) S else TSpec#:

assume condition;S

assume ! condition;T

Thenbranch

Elsebranch

BoogiePL:

1.7.2008 Slide 22H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

BoogiePL syntax

1.7.2008 Slide 23H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

1.7.2008 Slide 24H. Schlingloff, Logical Specification

BoogiePL Verifier

• Based on HP‘s „Simplify“ theorem prover http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2003/HPL-2003-148.pdf

first-order theorem prover (satisfiability) includes complete decision procedures for the

theory of equality and for linear rational arithmetic heuristics for linear integer arithmetic propositional connectives are solved by backtracking handling of quantifiers by pattern-driven

instantiation (incomplete)

• Translation from Boogie PL to Simplify weakest precondition of each statement each statement and each procedure gives rise to

one verification condition