Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Automating Abstract Interpretation Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Viper: A Verification Infrastructure for Permission-Based Reasoning

verfasst von : Peter Müller, Malte Schwerhoff, Alexander J. Summers

Erschienen in: Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation

Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The automation of verification techniques based on first-order logic specifications has benefitted greatly from verification infrastructures such as Boogie and Why. These offer an intermediate language that can express diverse language features and verification techniques, as well as back-end tools: in particular, verification condition generators.
However, these infrastructures are not well suited to verification techniques based on separation logic and other permission logics, because they do not provide direct support for permissions and because existing tools for these logics often favour symbolic execution over verification condition generation. Consequently, tool support for these logics (where available) is typically developed independently for each technique, dramatically increasing the burden of developing automatic tools for permission-based verification.
In this paper, we present a verification infrastructure whose intermediate language supports an expressive permission model natively. We provide tool support including two back-end verifiers: one based on symbolic execution, and one on verification condition generation; an inference tool based on abstract interpretion is currently under development. A wide range of existing verification techniques can be implemented via this infrastructure, alleviating much of the burden of building permission-based verifiers, and allowing the developers of higher-level reasoning techniques to focus their efforts at an appropriate level of abstraction.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Automating Abstract Interpretation
Nächstes Kapitel Predicate Abstraction for Linked Data Structures
Literatur
1.
Barnett, M., Fähndrich, M., Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P., Schulte, W., Venter, H.: Specification and verification: the Spec# experience. Commun. ACM 54(6), 81–91 (2011)CrossRef
2.
Bengtson, J., Jensen, J.B., Birkedal, L.: A framework for higher-order separation logic in Coq. In: Beringer, L., Felty, A. (eds.) ITP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7406, pp. 315–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRef
3.
Berdine, J., Calcagno, C., O’Hearn, P.W.: Smallfoot: modular automatic assertion checking with separation logic. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 115–137. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRef
4.
Blom, S., Darabi, S., Huisman, M.: Verification of loop parallelisations. In: Egyed, A., Schaefer, I. (eds.) FASE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9033, pp. 202–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)
5.
Blom, S., Huisman, M.: The VerCors tool for verification of concurrent programs. In: Jones, C., Pihlajasaari, P., Sun, J. (eds.) FM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8442, pp. 127–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRef
6.
7.
Boyland, J.: Checking interference with fractional permissions. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) SAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2694, pp. 55–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2003) CrossRef
8.
Boyland, J.T., Müller, P., Schwerhoff, M., Summers, A.J.: Constraint semantics for abstract read permissions. In: FTfJP 2014, pp. 2:1–2:6. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2014)
9.
Chin, W.-N., David, C., Nguyen, H.H., Qin, S.: Automated verification of shape, size and bag properties via user-defined predicates in separation logic. Sci. Comput. Program. 77(9), 1006–1036 (2012)MATHCrossRef
10.
Chlipala, A., Malecha, J.G., Morrisett, G., Shinnar, A., Wisnesky, R.: Effective interactive proofs for higher-order imperative programs. In: Hutton, G., Tolmach, A.P. (eds.) ICFP, pp. 79–90. ACM (2009)
11.
Cohen, E., Moskal, M., Schulte, W., Tobies, S.: Local verification of global invariants in concurrent programs. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 480–494. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRef
12.
Dockins, R., Hobor, A., Appel, A.W.: A fresh look at separation algebras and share accounting. In: Hu, Z. (ed.) APLAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5904, pp. 161–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRef
13.
Filliâtre, J.-C., Marché, C.: The Why/Krakatoa/Caduceus platform for deductive program verification. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 173–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRef
14.
Filliâtre, J.-C., Paskevich, A.: Why3 — where programs meet provers. In: Felleisen, M., Gardner, P. (eds.) ESOP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7792, pp. 125–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRef
15.
Heule, S., Kassios, I.T., Müller, P., Summers, A.J.: Verification condition generation for permission logics with abstract predicates and abstraction functions. In: Castagna, G. (ed.) ECOOP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7920, pp. 451–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRef
16.
Heule, S., Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P., Summers, A.J.: Abstract read permissions: fractional permissions without the fractions. In: Giacobazzi, R., Berdine, J., Mastroeni, I. (eds.) VMCAI 2013. LNCS, vol. 7737, pp. 315–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRef
17.
Hoare, C.A.R.: Proof of correctness of data representation. Acta Informatica 1(4), 271–281 (1972)MATHCrossRef
18.
Jacobs, B., Smans, J., Philippaerts, P., Vogels, F., Penninckx, W., Piessens, F.: VeriFast: a powerful, sound, predictable, fast verifier for C and Java. In: Bobaru, M., Havelund, K., Holzmann, G.J., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6617, pp. 41–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRef
19.
Kirchner, F., Kosmatov, N., Prevosto, V., Signoles, J., Yakobowski, B.: Frama-C: a software analysis perspective. Formal Asp. Comput. 27(3), 573–609 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRef
20.
Lal, A., Qadeer, S., Lahiri, S.K.: A solver for reachability modulo theories. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 427–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRef
21.
Leavens, G., Baker, A.L., Ruby, C.: JML: a notation for detailed design. In: Kilov, I., Rumpe, B., Simmonds, I. (eds.) Behavioral Specifications of Businesses and Systems, pp. 175–188. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999) CrossRef
22.
23.
Leino, K.R.M.: Dafny: an automatic program verifier for functional correctness. In: Clarke, E.M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR-16 2010. LNCS, vol. 6355, pp. 348–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRef
24.
Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P.: A basis for verifying multi-threaded programs. In: Castagna, G. (ed.) ESOP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5502, pp. 378–393. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRef
25.
Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P.: Using the Spec# language, methodology, and tools to write bug-free programs. In: Müller, P. (ed.) LASER Summer School 2007/2008. LNCS, vol. 6029, pp. 91–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRef
26.
Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P., Smans, J.: Verification of concurrent programs with Chalice. In: Aldini, A., Barthe, G., Gorrieri, R. (eds.) FOSAD. LNCS, vol. 5705, pp. 195–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRef
27.
Moskal, M.: Programming with triggers. In: SMT 2009, pp. 20–29. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2009)
28.
29.
O’Hearn, P.W., Reynolds, J.C., Yang, H.: Local reasoning about programs that alter data structures. In: Fribourg, L. (ed.) CSL 2001 and EACSL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2142, pp. 1–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2001) CrossRef
30.
Parkinson, M., Bierman, G.: Separation logic and abstraction. In: POPL, pp. 247–258 (2005)
31.
Parkinson, M.J., Summers, A.J.: The relationship between separation logic and implicit dynamic frames. Logical Methods Comput. Sci. 8(3:01), 1–54 (2012)MathSciNet
32.
Navarro Pérez, J.A., Rybalchenko, A.: Separation logic modulo theories. In: Shan, C. (ed.) APLAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8301, pp. 90–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRef
33.
Piskac, R., Wies, T., Zufferey, D.: GRASShopper—complete heap verification with mixed specifications. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 124–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRef
34.
Reynolds, J.: Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures. In: LICS, pp. 55–74. IEEE Computer Society (2002)
35.
Schwerhoff, M., Summers, A.J.: Lightweight support for magic wands in an automatic verifier. In: Boyland, J.T. (ed.) ECOOP, vol. 37 of LIPIcs, pp. 614–638. Schloss Dagstuhl (2015)
36.
Smans, J., Jacobs, B., Piessens, F.: Implicit dynamic frames: combining dynamic frames and separation logic. In: Drossopoulou, S. (ed.) ECOOP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5653, pp. 148–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRef
37.
Tuerk, T.: A formalisation of Smallfoot in HOL. In: Berghofer, S., Nipkow, T., Urban, C., Wenzel, M. (eds.) TPHOLs 2009. LNCS, vol. 5674, pp. 469–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Viper: A Verification Infrastructure for Permission-Based Reasoning
verfasst von
Peter Müller
Malte Schwerhoff
Alexander J. Summers
Copyright-Jahr
2016
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Buch
Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation

Print ISBN: 978-3-662-49121-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-662-49122-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49122-5_2