Download
program analysis as constraint solving n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Program Analysis as Constraint Solving PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Program Analysis as Constraint Solving

Program Analysis as Constraint Solving

83 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Program Analysis as Constraint Solving

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Program Analysis as Constraint Solving RamarathnamVenkatesan (MSR Redmond) SaurabhSrivastava (Univ. of Maryland) Sumit Gulwani (MSR Redmond) TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AA

  2. Introduction • Last decade has witnessed an engineering revolution in constraint solving. • We have developed techniques to reduce classic program analysis problems to constraint solving (in the context of linear arithmetic properties). • Program Verification • Inter-procedural Program Analysis • Weakest Precondition Generation • Strongest Postcondition Generation • We show applications of these techniques to • Proving termination/Bounds Analysis • Finding preconditions for non-termination • Most-general counterexamples

  3. Introduction • Last decade has witnessed an engineering revolution in constraint solving. • We have developed techniques to reduce classic program analysis problems to constraint solving (in the context of linear arithmetic properties). • Program Verification • Inter-procedural Program Analysis • Weakest Precondition Generation • Strongest Postcondition Generation • We show applications of these techniques to • Proving termination/Bounds Analysis • Finding preconditions for non-termination • Most-general counterexamples

  4. Program Verification Pre while (c) S Post Pre ) I I Æ:c ) Post (I Æ c)[S] ) I I 8X 9 I Second-order satisfiability constraint Verify a Hoare triple (Pre, Program, Post)

  5. Solving second-order satisfiability constraints 9I 8X Á1(I,X) • Second-order to First-order • Assume I has some form, e.g., j ajxj¸ 0 • 9I 8X Á1(I,X) translates to 9aj8X Á2(aj,X) • First-order to “only existentially quantified” • Farkas Lemma helps translate 8 to 9 • 8X (Æk(ek¸0) ) e¸0) iff9k¸0 8X (e ´ + kkek) • Eliminate X from polynomial equality by equating coefficients. • 9aj8X Á2(aj,X)translates to 9aj9¸kÁ3(aj,¸k) • “only existentially quantified” to SAT • Bit-vector modeling for integer variables

  6. Program Verification: Example [n=1 Æ m=1] x := 0; y := 0; while (x < 100) x := x+n; y := y+m; [y ¸ 100] Invariant Template Satisfying Solution Loop Invariant a0 + a1x + a2y + a3n + a4m ¸ 0 b0 + b1x + b2y + b3n + b4m ¸ 0 c0 + c1x + c2y + c3n + c4m ¸ 0 y ¸ x m ¸1 n · 1 a2=b0=c4=1, a1=b3=c0=-1 a2=b2=1, a1=b1=-1 y ¸ x m ¸ n a0 + a1x + a2y + a3n + a4m ¸ 0 b0 + b1x + b2y + b3n + b4m ¸ 0 UNSAT Invalid triple or Imprecise Template a0 + a1x + a2y + a3n + a4m ¸ 0

  7. Outline • Program Verification • Weakest Precondition Generation • Termination/Bounds Analysis • Most-general Counterexamples

  8. Weakest Precondition [m ¸ n] x := 0; y := 0; while (x < 100) x := x+n; y := y+m; [y ¸ 100] Find “weakest” Pre such that the Hoare triple (Pre, Program, Post) is valid.

  9. Weakest Precondition: Attempt 1 VC(Pre) Precondition Encoding Pre while (c) S Post Pre ) I I Æ:c ) Post (I Æ c)[S] ) I I 9Pre, I 8X “Weakest” Precondition Encoding VC(Pre) 8R: If R is weaker than Pre, then :VC(R) 9 Pre, I Unfortunately, Farkas lemma is no longer applicable since the formula is non-linear in universally quantified variables. Find “weakest” Pre such that the Hoare triple (Pre, Program, Post) is valid.

  10. Weakest Precondition: Attempt 2 VC(Pre) Precondition Encoding Pre while (c) S Post Pre ) I I Æ:c ) Post (I Æ c)[S] ) I I 9Pre, I 8X Non-false Precondition Encoding Pre x := 0; y := 0; while (x < 100) x := x+n; y := y+m; [y ¸ 100] VC(Pre) Pre is weaker than false 9 Pre, I • m¸n+127 is a satisfying assignment for Pre. • However, this is still not “Weakest” Pre. Find “weakest” Pre such that the Hoare triple (Pre, Program, Post) is valid.

  11. Weakest Precondition: Attempt 3 VC(Pre) Precondition Encoding Pre while (c) S Post Pre ) I I Æ:c ) Post (I Æ c)[S] ) I I 9Pre, I 8X “Weaker then Previous“ Precondition Encoding Pre x := 0; y := 0; while (x < 100) x := x+n; y := y+m; [y ¸ 100] VC(Pre) Pre is weaker than Previous Pre 9 Pre, I • Seq. m¸n+127, m¸n+126,…, m¸nis admissible. • This iterative refinement is too slow. Find “weakest” Pre such that the Hoare triple (Pre, Program, Post) is valid.

  12. Weakest Precondition: Solution 1 VC(Pre) Precondition Encoding Pre while (c) S Post Pre ) I I Æ:c ) Post (I Æ c)[S] ) I I 9Pre, I 8X Locally-weakest Precondition Encoding Pre x := 0; y := 0; while (x < 100) x := x+n; y := y+m; [y ¸ 100] VC(Pre) Pre is weaker then Previous Pre :VC(R1) Æ:VC(R2) … 9 Pre, I where R1, R2,… are weaker neighbors of Pre. Find “weakest” Pre such that the Hoare triple (Pre, Program, Post) is valid.

  13. Weaker Neighborhood Structure Geometric Interpretation Shift plane ei parallel to itself. Rotate plane ei along its intersection with another plane. Weaker neighbors of e1¸0 Æ e2¸0 are: • e1+1¸0 Æ e2¸0 • e1¸0 Æ e2+1¸0 • e1+e2¸0 Æ e2¸0 • e1¸0 Æ e2+e1¸0

  14. Weakest Precondition: Solution 1 VC(Pre) Precondition Encoding Pre while (c) S Post Pre ) I I Æ:c ) Post (I Æ c)[S] ) I I 9Pre, I 8X Locally-weakest Precondition Encoding Pre x := 0; y := 0; while (x < 100) x := x+n; y := y+m; [y ¸ 100] VC(Pre) Æ:VC(R1) Æ:VC(R2) … Pre is weaker than Previous Pre 9 Pre, I • We directly obtain m¸n. • m¸n+c is no longer locally-weakest for c>0. • In fact, we obtain one more solution: n·0. • Generally, locally weakest  weakest. Iteration may be required. Find “weakest” Pre such that the Hoare triple (Pre, Program, Post) is valid.

  15. Outline • Program Verification • Weakest Precondition Generation • Termination/Bounds Analysis • Most-general Counterexample

  16. Termination/Bounds Analysis i := 0; while (c) i := i+1; Assert(i· F(inputs)); S while (c) S • Transformation introduces a counter to track loop iterations. • Then we run “Program Verification” Algorithm. • Besides loop invariant, part F of assertion is also unknown. • Existence of a solution yields a termination proof. • Solution for F gives upper bound on # of loop iterations.

  17. Outline • Program Verification • Weakest Precondition Generation • Termination/Bounds Analysis • Most-general Counterexample

  18. Most-general Counterexample Pre x := 0; err := 0; i := 0; while (x < n) i:= i+1; Assert(i·F(n,y)); if (x¸200) err := 1; x := x+y; Assert (err=1) • “n=356 and y=12” leads to a bug. However, it is more useful to say “y>0 Æ n¸200+y” leads to a bug. We generate this by: • 2-step Transformation • Introduce error variable err to track assertion violation. • Introduce counter i to track loop iterations/termination. • Then, we run “weakest” Precondition algorithm. x := 0; while (x < n) Assert(x<200); x := x+y;

  19. Experiments: Methodology • We ran our tool against academic/small benchmarks used by 10 earlier pieces of work that address a wide variety of program analyses related to linear arithmetic properties. • Inter-procedural analysis, Disjunctive invariant inference, termination/bounds analysis, non-termination, strongest Postcondition generation. • Parameters: • Templates: 2 conjuncts/1 disjunct • Bit-vector modeling: 3 bits for unknown coefficients, 6 bits for unknown constants, 1 bit for multipliers ¸ in Farkas lemma • Iteratively increased these quantities.

  20. Experiments: Results • Clauses generated: 5K to 560K (Most examples < 200K) • Time taken: 0.1 sec to 80 sec (Most examples < 5 sec) • comparable; however, demonstrates versatility

  21. Related Work: Constraint based techniques Invariant discovery • Linear [Colon, Sankaranarayanan, Sipma, CAV ‘03] • Non-linear [Sankaranarayanan et al, POPL ‘04]; [Kapur, ‘05] • Linear arithmetic + uninterpreted fns [Beyer et.al., VMCAI ‘07] This work only addresses linear invariants, but • With arbitrary (pre-specified) boolean structure. • In an inter-procedural setting. • In a weakest precondition generation mode too. Bug Finding • SATURN [Xie, Aiken, CAV ‘05]: works with loop-free programs This work only addresses programs with linear assignments, but • Finds most-general bugs in programs with loops

  22. Conclusion • Constraint-based techniques offer 2 advantages over fixed-point computation based techniques: • Goal-directed (may buy efficiency) • Do not require widening (may buy precision) • This work showed how to reduce a wide variety of program analysis problems to constraint solving over the domain of linear arithmetic. • Future work includes extending these ideas to other domains such as pointers, quantifiers.