Background information

• Formal verification methods based on theorem proving techniques and model checking

– to prove the absence of errors (in the formal model)

– to reason about the behaviors of programs

• No known generic software verification – Involves complicated proving

– Generally cannot be easily and cost-effectively integrated to software and hardware development cycles

Major Verification Topics

• Specification Verification• Architecture Verification• General practical issues

Architecture Verification

• Correctness of architecture refinement– a methodology for the correct stepwise refinement of software

architectures

– using the approach of architecture refinement patterns that are correctness preserving and compositional

Common architecture Issues

• From abstract level to concrete level

• Simple architecture: box - arrows, representing data component and connections

• Large architecture: Hierarchical approach

Common architecture problem

• Limited utility of architecture hierarchy results from the current level of informality

• Ambiguity in architecture allows unintended interpretations. May cause erroneous interrepretation

Architecture Refinement

• From a abstract architecture to a concrete (lower-level) architecture– lead to:

• fewer architectural design errors

• extensive and systematic reuse of design knowledge and proofs

Refinement pattern approach• A pair architecture schemas (homogenous or heterogeneous)

• proven to be relatively correct with respect to the given mapping schema

Refinement pattern

• Requires a special correctness criterion– a special mapping between architectures– extensive translation:

• the representation of components, interfaces, and connections

• aggregated, decomposed, or eliminated

Completeness assumption

• Prove that a concrete architecture has all required properties– No new properties can be inferred from the concrete architecture

• All components, interfaces, and connections intended to be true of the architecture at its level of detail– If a fact is not explicit in the architecture, assume that it is not

intended to be true

Completeness assumption

• Standard way to proof relative correctness – show that the concrete specification logically implies the abstract

specification under a given mapping

– allow additional and specified behaviors, as long as the specified behavior is implemented

– no guarantee that negative properties are preserved under refinement

• Alternative:– faithful interpretation

– hard and no general proof technique

• Use preproved refinement patterns

Example

• Use only logical theories for simplicity

• To show how to systematically and incrementally transform a abstract architecture to its lower-level form

• Approach: combining small and local refinement to form the larger composite

Examplechars code

Lexical Analyzer

Lexical Parser

Analyzer Optimizer

Code Generator

toks ast ast

bindings

Lexical Parser

Analyzer Optimizer

ast

From simple dataflow to shared syntax tree:

Example: abstract

sub-architecture to concrete sub-architecture

Architecture as Theories

• Architecture Styles– Operations & axioms

• Translation to Logic– Patterns logic (theory generation rules)

• Mapping– Name mapping– Style mapping– Interpretation mapping

Architecture stylesDataflow style:

Axioms example -- Every function must at least have one port:

Translation to Logic

• An instance of function declaration schema:– f: Functional_Style!Function [ op: t]

• The underlying theory contains the same instance of first order sentences:

Pattern of Abstract Architecture

M: MODULE [

Pattern of Concrete Architecture

Mapping• Name mapping:

– c | m

– op | w

• Style mapping:– Accepts (_, _) | Gets (_, _)

– Connects (_, _, _) | Writes (_,_) ^ Reads(_,_)

• Interpretation mapping = name + style mapping

Proving

• Criterion– all intended to do– not intended to do

Composition

• Horizontal– compose instances of refinement patterns to

form one large composite refinement

• Vertical– most concrete architecture in a hierarchy is

correct with respect to the most abstract– justified since faithful interpretation is

transitive

problem example

• Concrete architecture 1– A B (dataflow connection)

• Concrete architecture 2– B C (dataflow connection)

• the composition of 1 and 2 is not faithful!– need new abstract dataflow from A to C

Specification

• Correctness issue

• Complete specification of program is in terms of hierarchical structure of module specifications

• Module external specification are abstract, about module behavior

• Module internal specifications are descriptions of internal implementations

Concurrent System Verification

• Program is a set of events

• Interpreted and verified with a formal proof system

• Internal specification classified as composite or simple

• Composite: composed of linked sub-modules, each with external and internal specification

External Specification

External specification consist of three parts:

• behavior: module delivers to the environment

• provide: how modules synchronizes with the environment

• require: synchronization cooperation the module expects from environment

Composite internal specification

Internal specification of a composite module associates events described in the external specification of the module with events described in the external specifications of the sub-modules.

• Ports: a set of single direction communication channels between the module and its environment

•Network link: sub module ports are connected together to form communication channels

Composite module verification

Verification of composite module:

1. External behaviors of the sub-modules plus the network and interface links must imply the external behavior of composite module

2. Provides and requires of the sub modules and composite module must be mutually supportive and complete.

“mutual support: sub module provides imply the sub- module requires.

“ complete:composite require and provide represent the sub module requires and provides accurately and completely.

Composite module

Simple module specification verification

Internal specification of a simple consists of three parts:

• program: internal specification as example

• performance: whether the program is cyclic or terminates and contains an assert statement that describe the history

• interpret: identify ports with subsequences on the history

Simple module internal specs

Simple module specification verification

Verification of specifications of a simple module:

1. Performance and interpret statements must imply the external behavior

2. Performance and external provide must be established using following axioms :

• History Sequence Axiom

• Statement block Axiom

• Process history Axiom

Discussion

• Task of analyzing programs is easier if the program is composed of modules

• Key importance is to establish specifications

• Automated verification system can be based on verification rules

Related works

• Automatic program verifications- verification condition generator

• EBS, Chen, Yeh, Reed et al

• Concurrent programs, Hailpern,Owicki, Lamport and Schneider

General discussion

• Abstract logic component decomposition verification and efficiency analysis

• Practical tools, such as UML