Translation-Based Compositional Reasoning for Software Systems Fei Xie and James C. Browne Robert P. Kurshan Cadence Design Systems

2 Agenda Motivations Translation-Based Compositional Reasoning An Realization of TBCR Applications Conclusions

3 Software Model Checking Improves reliability of software systems; Often applied through –Translation of software systems to directly model-checkable formalisms; –Or abstraction first, then translation. Requires Compositional Reasoning to check large-scale software systems.

4 Compositional Reasoning How it works –Decompose a system into components; –Verify component properties; –Derive system properties from component properties. To support it, what need be done –Establish a compositional reasoning rule; –Prove the correctness of the rule; –Implement the rule.

5 Problem to be addressed How to support compositional reasoning in software model checking through translation?

6 Problem Context Software systems are often model checked through translation. Formulation and reasoning of properties are more naturally accomplished in the software semantics. Direct proof of compositional reasoning rules in software semantics is often difficult. Rules have been established, proven, and implemented for widely used formal semantics.

7 Agenda Motivations Translation-Based Compositional Reasoning An Realization of TBCR Applications Conclusions

8 Rule Establishment and Proof Software Semantics Formal Semantics (1)Establish a compositional reasoning rule (4) Prove the rule based on the mapping and proof of the corresponding rule in formal semantics (3) Prove the corresponding rule or reuse existing proof (2) Map the rule to its corresponding rule in the formal semantics Semantics Translation

9 Background: General Form of Rule Premises –Verification of component properties; –Validation of circular dependencies; –Derivation of system properties from component properties. Conclusion –System properties hold on the system.

10 Rule Implementation and Application Software System Formal Representation (1)Formulation of premises for applying the rule (2) Translation of the premises. (4) Establishment of conclusion according to the proven rule. (3) Discharge of the premises

11 Agenda Motivations Translation-Based Compositional Reasoning An Realization of TBCR Applications Conclusions

12 Translation Context Semantics Conformance Semantics Conformance AIM Semantics  -automaton Semantics Semantics Translation xUMLS/R xUML-to-S/R Translation xUML: An executable dialect of UML; S/R: Input language of COSPAN model checker.

13 Realization of TBCR Rule Establishment Rule Proof Rule Implementation and Application

14 AIM Semantics Asynchronous Interleaving Message-passing –A system consists of a finite set of processes. –Processes execute asynchronously. –At any moment, only one process executes. –Interactions via asynchronous message-passing. Systems, components, and properties are all specified as AIM processes.

15 Definitions Let P and Q be two AIM processes; L(P), the language of P; P implements Q, P |= Q, if L(P)  L(Q); –Language containment; –Basic model checking algorithm; P // Q is a composition of P and Q; CL(P) is the safety closure of P.

16 Rule Establishment Adapting existing rules in other semantics –Reuses previous efforts; Devising new rules –Customizes to special semantics requirement.

17 Rule AENT [ Amla, Emerson, Namjoshi, and Trefler ] Has been adapted to AIM semantics. To show P 1 //P 2 |= Q, find Q 1 and Q 2 that satisfy: C1: P 1 //Q 2 |= Q 1 and P 2 //Q 1 |= Q 2 {Verifying component properties assuming properties of other components hold} C2: Q 1 //Q 2 |= Q {Deriving system property from component properties} C3: Either P 1 //CL(Q) |= (Q + Q 1 + Q 2 ) Or P 2 //CL(Q) |= (Q + Q 1 + Q 2 ) {Validating circular dependencies among component properties} Conclusion Premises

18 Why validate circular dependencies between component properties? Eventually (A)Eventually (B) Eventually (A) and Eventually (B) ? C1C2 XX A = FALSE B = FALSE

19 Realization of TBCR Rule Establishment Rule Proof Rule Implementation and Application

20 Translation from AIM Semantics to  -automaton semantics AIM Semantics  -automaton Semantics I/O-automaton Semantics

21 Preservation of Language Containment L(A)  L(B) iff L(Trans(A))  L(Trans(B)); Theorem 1: –Translation from AIM semantics to I/O-automaton semantics preserves language containment. Theorem 2: –Translation from I/O-automaton semantic to  -automaton semantics preserves language containment. Theorem 3: –Translation from AIM Semantic to  -automaton semantics preserves language containment.

22 Proof via Semantics Translation Proof sketch for Rule AENT: –Assume that C1, C2, and C3 hold; –By Theorem 3,  -automaton translations of C1, C2, C3 hold; –By  -automaton counterpart of Rule AENT,  -automaton translation of P 1 //P 2 |= Q holds; –By Theorem 3, P 1 //P 2 |= Q holds.

23 Realization of TBCR Rule Establishment Rule Proof Rule Implementation and Application

24 Model Checking of xUML Model Property Specification InterfacexUML IDEError Visualizer xUML-to-S/R TranslatorError Report Generator COSPAN Model Checker S/R ModelS/R Query Error ReportError TrackDesigner xUML Model Property AIM Semantics  -automaton Semantics

25 Application of Rule AENT Given a system and a property in xUML: On xUML level: –The system is decomposed; –Premises of Rule AENT are formulated. Premises are translated into S/R. On S/R level –Premises are discharged with COSPAN model checker. On xUML level –Conclude that the property holds on the system if the premises are successfully discharged.

26 Agenda Motivations Translation-Based Compositional Reasoning Realization of TBCR Applications Conclusions

27 Two Major Applications Integrated state space reduction framework Verification of component-based systems

28 Verification of Component-based Systems Temporal properties are specified, verified, and packaged with components. Larger components are composed incrementally. Component reuse considers component properties. Verification of a property of a composed component –Reuses verified properties of its sub-components; –Follows abstraction-refinement paradigm; –Is based on compositional reasoning.

29 Case Study: TinyOS [Hill, et. al, `00] A run-time system for network sensors from UC Berkeley; Component-based –Different requirements of sensors; –Physical limitations of sensors; High reliability required –Concurrency-intensive operations; –Installation to many sensors.

30 Sensor Component Output message Type Input message Type Component Boundary AIM Process

31 Properties of Sensor Component Property Q1 (Output repeatedly): Repeatedly (Output); Property Q2 (Output handshake correctly handled): After (Output) Never (Output) UntilAfter (OP_Ack); After (Done) Eventually (Done_Ack); Never (Done_Ack) UntilAfter (Done); After (Done_Ack) Never (Done_Ack) UntilAfter(Done);

32 Network Component

33 Properties of Network Component Property Q3 (Transmit repeatedly if input repeatedly): IfRepeatedly (Data) Repeatedly (RFM.Pending); IfRepeatedly (Data) Repeatedly (Not RFM.Pending); Property Q4 (Input handshake correctly handled): After (Data) Eventually (Data_Ack); Never (Data_Ack) UntilAfter (Data); After (Data_Ack) Never (Data_Ack) UntilAfter (Data); After (Sent) Never (Sent) UntilAfter (Sent_Ack);

34 Verification of Primitive Components Q1 and Q2 were verified on the Sensor component assuming Q4. Q3 and Q4 were verified on the Network component assuming Q2. Discharge of Premise C1 of Rule AENT.

35 Sensor-to-Network (SN) Component Property Q (Transmit repeatedly) : Repeatedly (RFM.Pending); Repeatedly (Not RFM.Pending);

36 Verification of Q on SN Q is checked on an abstraction of SN. The abstraction consists of sub-component properties that are –Enabled (whose assumptions hold); –Not involved in invalid circular dependencies. Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 are not included due to circular dependencies between Q2 and Q4.

37 Verification of Q on SN (cont.) Circular dependency between Q2 and Q4 is validated. (Discharge of Premise C3 of Rule AENT. ) The abstraction is refined by including Q1 and Q3. Q is verified on the refined abstraction. (Discharge of Premise C2 of Rule AENT.) Conclusion: Q holds on Sensor-to-Network.

38 Agenda Motivations Translation-Based Compositional Reasoning Realization of TBCR Applications Conclusions

39 Conclusions Translation-Based Compositional Reasoning –Simple and effective; –Suitable for compositional reasoning in software model checking through translation; –Simplifies proof of compositional reasoning rules; –Reuses existing compositional reasoning rules.