skip to main content
10.1145/2491956.2462174acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespldiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

TRANSIT: specifying protocols with concolic snippets

Published:16 June 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

With the maturing of technology for model checking and constraint solving, there is an emerging opportunity to develop programming tools that can transform the way systems are specified. In this paper, we propose a new way to program distributed protocols using concolic snippets. Concolic snippets are sample execution fragments that contain both concrete and symbolic values. The proposed approach allows the programmer to describe the desired system partially using the traditional model of communicating extended finite-state-machines (EFSM), along with high-level invariants and concrete execution fragments. Our synthesis engine completes an EFSM skeleton by inferring guards and updates from the given fragments which is then automatically analyzed using a model checker with respect to the desired invariants. The counterexamples produced by the model checker can then be used by the programmer to add new concrete execution fragments that describe the correct behavior in the specific scenario corresponding to the counterexample.

We describe TRANSIT, a language and prototype implementation of the proposed specification methodology for distributed protocols. Experimental evaluations of TRANSIT to specify cache coherence protocols show that (1) the algorithm for expression inference from concolic snippets can synthesize expressions of size 15 involving typical operators over commonly occurring types, (2) for a classical directory-based protocol, TRANSIT automatically generates, in a few seconds, a complete implementation from a specification consisting of the EFSM structure and a few concrete examples for every transition, and (3) a published partial description of the SGI Origin cache coherence protocol maps directly to symbolic examples and leads to a complete implementation in a few iterations, with the programmer correcting counterexamples resulting from underspecified transitions by adding concrete examples in each iteration.

References

  1. Intel Core2 Extreme Processor X6800 and Intel Core2 Duo Desktop Processor E6000 and E4000 Sequence -- Specification Update, 2003. URL http://www.intel.com/design/processor/ specupdt/313279.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. D. Abts, D. J. Lilja, and S. Scott. So Many States, So Little Time: Verifying Memory Coherence in the Cray X1. In Proceedings of the International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, IPDPS '03, pages 1--11, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, H. Hiraishi, S. Jha, D. .Long, K. McMillan, and L. Ness. Verification of the Futurebus+ Cache Coherence Protocol. Formal Methods in System Design, 6:217--232, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. N. Dave, M. C. Ng, and Arvind. Automatic Synthesis of Cache- Coherence Protocol Processors Using Bluespec. In Formal Methods and Models for Codesign, MEMOCODE '05, pages 25--34, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. D. Dill, A. Drexler, A. Hu, and C. Yang. Protocol Verification as a Hardware Design Aid. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Design, ICCD '92, pages 522--525, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. B. Finkbeiner and S. Jacobs. Lazy Synthesis. In 13th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation, VMCAI '12, LNCS 7148, pages 219--234, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. Gulwani. Automating String Processing in Spreadsheets using Input-output Examples. In Proceedings of The 38th ACM SIGPLAN/ SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL '11, pages 317--330, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S. Gulwani, S. Jha, A. Tiwari, and R. Venkatesan. Synthesis of Loopfree Programs. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI '11, pages 62--73, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. D. Harel. Can Programming Be Liberated, Period? IEEE Computer, 41(1):28--37, Jan. 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. D. Harel and R. Marelly. Come, Let's Play: Scenario-Based Programming Using LSCs and the Play-Engine. Springer-Verlag New York, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. D. Harel, A. Marron, and G. Weiss. Behavioral Programming. Communications of the ACM, 55(7):90--100, Jul. 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. G. J. Holzmann. The Spin Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. Jha, S. Gulwani, S. A. Seshia, and A. Tiwari. Oracle-guided Component-based Program Synthesis. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 1, ICSE '10, pages 215--224, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. G. Katz and D. Peled. MCGP: A Software Synthesis Tool Based on Model Checking and Genetic Programming. In 8th Internation Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis, ATVA '10, LNCS 6252, pages 359--364, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. V. Kuncak, M. Mayer, R. Piskac, and P. Suter. Software Synthesis Procedures. Communications of the ACM, 55(2):103--111, Feb. 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. J. Laudon and D. Lenoski. The SGI Origin: A ccNUMA Highly Scalable Server. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, ISCA '97, pages 241--251, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. N. A. Lynch. Distributed algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. M. M. K. Martin, D. J. Sorin, B. M. Beckmann, M. R. Marty, M. Xu, A. R. Alameldeen, K. E. Moore, M. D. Hill, and D. A. Wood. Multifacet's General Execution-driven Multiprocessor Simulator (GEMS) Toolset. SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, 33(4):92--99, Nov. 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. L. D. Moura and N. Bjørner. Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, TACAS '08, pages 337--340, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. K. Sen, D. Marinov, and G. Agha. CUTE: A Concolic Unit Testing Engine for C. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE '05, pages 263--272, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. S. A. Seshia. Sciduction: Combining Induction, Deduction, and Structure for Verification and Synthesis. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Design Automation Conference, DAC '12, pages 356--365, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. Singh and A. Solar-Lezama. Synthesizing Data Structure Manipulations from Storyboards. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Symposiumon Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE '11, pages 289--299,2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Solar-Lezama, R. Rabbah, R. Bodik, and K. Ebcioglu. Programming by Sketching for Bitstreaming Programs. In Proceedings of the SIGPLAN 2005 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI '05, pages 281--294, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. A. Solar-Lezama, C. G. Jones, and R. Bodik. Sketching Concurrent Data Structures. In Proceedings of the SIGPLAN 2008 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI '08, pages 136--148, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. D. J. Sorin, M. D. Hill, and D. A. Wood. A Primer on Memory Consistency and Cache Coherence. Morgan Claypool, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. S. Srivastava, S. Gulwani, and J. S. Foster. From Program Verification to Program Synthesis. In Proceedings of the 37th annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL '10, pages 313--326, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. M. Talupur and M. R. Tuttle. Going with the Flow: Parameterized Verification using Flows: An Industrial Experience. In Proceedings of the 2008 Internation Conference on Formal Methods in Computer- Aided Design, FMCAD '08, pages 1--8, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. W. Thomas. Facets of Synthesis: Revisiting Church's Problem. In Foundations of Software Science and Computational Structures, 12th International Conference, FOSSACS '09, LNCS 5504, pages 1--14, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. TRANSIT: specifying protocols with concolic snippets

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        PLDI '13: Proceedings of the 34th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation
        June 2013
        546 pages
        ISBN:9781450320146
        DOI:10.1145/2491956
        • cover image ACM SIGPLAN Notices
          ACM SIGPLAN Notices  Volume 48, Issue 6
          PLDI '13
          June 2013
          515 pages
          ISSN:0362-1340
          EISSN:1558-1160
          DOI:10.1145/2499370
          Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2013 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 16 June 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        PLDI '13 Paper Acceptance Rate46of267submissions,17%Overall Acceptance Rate406of2,067submissions,20%

        Upcoming Conference

        PLDI '24

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader