Loading in 5 sec....

Model Checking: An introduction & overviewPowerPoint Presentation

Model Checking: An introduction & overview

- 95 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

Model Checking: An introduction & overview

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Model Checking:An introduction & overview

Gordon J. Pace

October 2005

- Automata model of computation: mathematical definition but intractable.
- Formal semantics: more abstract models but proofs difficult, tedious and error prone.
- Theorem proving: proofs rigorously checked but suffers from ‘only PhDs need apply’ syndrome.

- Radiation therapy machine overdoses patients,
- Pentium FDIV bug,
- Ariane-V crash.

Industry willing to invest in algorithmic based, push-button verification tools.

- Identify an interesting computation model,
- For which the verification question is decidable,
- And tractable on interesting problems.
- Write a program to answer verification questions.

- Operational Semantics:

- Denotational Semantics of Timed Systems:

v

V’

0

def

[ delay (v’, v) ] =

v’(t+1)=v(t) /\ v’(0)=low

[

]

- Q= States
- = Transition relation (Q x Q)
- I= Initial states ( Q)

Q, , I

(v:=1; w:=v) || (v:=¬v)

v,w=0,0

pc=0,0

v,w=1,0

pc=1,0

v,w=1,0

pc=0,1

v,w=1,0

pc=0,0

v,w=0,1

pc=0,1

v,w=0,1

pc=0,0

v,w=1,1

pc=1,0

v,w=1,1

pc=0,0

i

o

m

Q= Bool x Bool x Bool

I= {(i,m,o) | o = i /\ m }

= {((i,m,o),(i’,m’,o’)) | m’=o, o’=i’ /\ m’ }

- We will be ‘constructing’ TSs from a symbolic (textual/graphical) description of the system. This is a step which explodes exponentially (linear increase in description may imply exponential increase in state-space size).

- Safety properties: ‘Bad things never happen’.
eg The green lights on a street will never be on at the same time as the green lights on an intersecting street.

- Liveness properties: ‘Good things eventually happen’.
eg A system will never request a service infinitely often without eventually getting it.

Are any of the red states

reachable?

etc

Given a transition system M=Q,,I and a set of ‘bad’ states B, are there any states in B which are reachable in M?

R0 = I

Rn+1= Rn (Rn)

where: (P) = { s’ | sP: s s’ }

Reachable set is the fix-point of this sequence. Termination and correctness are easy to prove.

R := I; Rprev := ;

while (R Rprev) do

Rprev := R;

R := R (R);

if (B R ) then BUG;

CORRECT;

- Explicit representation
- Keeping a list of traversed states.
- State-explosion problem.
- Looking at the recursion stack will give counter-example (if one is found).
- Breath-first search guarantees a shortest counter-example.

- On-the-fly exploration: Explore only the ‘interesting’ part of the tree (wrt property and graph).
Example: Construct graph only at verification time. Finding a bug would lead to only partial unfolding of the description into a transition system.

- Partial order reduction: By identifying commuting actions (ones which do not disable each other), we can ignore parts of the model.
Example: To check for deadlock in (a!; P b!; Q), we may just fire actions a and b in this order rather than take all interleavings.

- Compositional verification: Build TS bottom up, minimising the automata as one goes along.
Example: To construct (P Q), construct P and minimise to get P’, construct Q and minimise to get Q’, and then calculate (P’ Q’).

- Interface-Based Verification: Use information about future interfaces composands while constructing sub-components.
Example: Constructing the full rhs of (10c;P + 5c;Q + …) Huge (5c;Tea) gives a lot of useless branches which the last process never uses.

- Symbolic state representation: Use a symbolic formula to represent the set of states.

R := I; Rprev := ;

while (R Rprev) do

Rprev := R;

R := R (R);

if (B R ) then BUG;

CORRECT;

Requires: representation of empty set, union, intersection, relation application, and set equality test.

Use boolean formulae

Let v1 to vn be the boolean variables in the state space. A boolean formula f(v1,…,vn) represents the set of all states (assignments of the variables) which satisfy the formula.

Double the variables

To represent the transition relation, give a formula over variables v1,…,vn and v’1,…,v’n relating the values before and after the step.

v1

v3

Initial states:

I (v2=true) /\ (v3=v1 /\ v2)

v2

1

Transition relation:

T (v3=v1 /\ v2) /\ (v’3=v’1 /\ v’2) /\ v’2=v3

Empty set: = false

Intersection:P Q = P /\ Q

Union:P Q = P \/ Q

Transition relation application:

(P) = (vars: P /\ T)[vars’/vars]

Testing set equality:

P=Q iff P Q

- Calculating whether a boolean formula is a tautology is an NP-complete problem.
- In practice representations like Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) and algorithms used in SAT checkers perform quite well on typical problems.

Bad

I=R0

R1

Bad

I

R2

R1

Bad

I

R2

R1

Bad

I

R2

R1

Bad

I

R2

R1

Bad

I

R2

R1

Bad

I

Set of all shortest counter-examples obtained

- Technique to reduce state space to explore, transition relation to use.
- Collapse state space by approximating wrt property being verified.
- Can be used to verify infinite state systems.

- Example: Collapse states together by throwing away variables, or simplifying wrt formula.

etc

- Example: Collapse states together by throwing away variables, or simplifying wrt formula.

etc

- Example: Collapse states together by throwing away variables, or simplifying wrt formula.

etc

- Concrete counter-example generation not always easy.
- May yield ‘false negatives’.

etc

- Backward Analysis
R0 = Bad

Rn+1= Rn -1(Rn)

If R be the fix-point of this sequence, the system is correct iff R I = .

- Induction (depth 1): If …
- The initial states are good, and
- Any good state can only go to a good state, then
The system is correct.

- Induction (depth n): If …
- Any chain of length n starting from an initial state yields only good states, and
- Any chain of n good states can only be extended to reach a good state, then,
The system is correct.

- Induction
By starting with n=1 and increasing, (plus adding some other constraints) we get a complete TS verification technique.

- Explicit state traversal: No more than 107 generated states. Works well for interleaving, asynchronous systems.
- Symbolic state traversal: Can reach up to 10150 (overall) states. Works well for synchronous systems.
- Sometimes may work with thousands of variables …
- With abstraction, 101500 states and above have been reported!

- Combined with other techniques, microprocessor producers are managing to ‘verify’ large chunks of their processors.
- Application of model-checking techniques on real-life systems still requires expert users.

- Various commercial and academic tools available.
- Symbolic:
- BDD based: SMV, NuSMV, VIS, Lustre tools.
- Sat based: Prover tools, Chaff, Hugo, Bandera toolset.

- Explicit state: CADP, Spin, CRL, Edinburgh Workbench, FDR.
- Various high-level input languages: Verilog, VHDL, LOTOS, CSP, CCS, C, JAVA.

- Safety properties are easy to specify
- Intuition: ‘no bad things happen’.
- If you can express a new output variable ok which is false when something bad happens, then this your property is a safety property (observer based verification).
- Not all properties are safety properties.

inputs

outputs

Program

ok

Observer

Advantage: Program and property can be expressed in the same language.

mayday

- The system may only shutdown if the mayday signal has been on and unattended for 4 consecutive time units.

shutdown

ok

- Bisimulation based verification
- Temporal logic based verification
- Linear time logic (eg LTL)
Globally (Finally bell)

- Branching time logic (eg CTL)
AG (ding EF dong)

Globally (Globally req Finally ack)

- Linear time logic (eg LTL)

- Example: Induction on structure:
From:

Prog(in,out) satisfiesProp(in,out)

Prog(in,m) /\ Prop(m,out) satisfies Prop(in,out)

Conclude:

Any chain of Prog’s satisfies Prop.

- So does this constitute a proof?
- Can I now claim my product to be correct?
- Would a proof that P=NP change verification as we now know it?

- Other techniques (STE, BMC,…),
- More about infinite systems,
- Testing and combining testing with verification,
- Interaction between theorem-provers and model-checkers,
- Model-checking other types of systems (hybrid systems, Petri-Nets, etc).

- Verification of Kevin & co’s synchronisation algorithms,
- Use grammar induction to improve interface based verification,
- SPeeDI and hybrid system verification,
- Structural induction to model-check compiler properties.