K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond NUI Maynooth Maynooth, Ireland 8 June 2007.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Automatic verification of summations K. Rustan M. Leino IFIP WG 2.3 meeting 46 Sydney, Australia 11 January 2007.
Advertisements

1 Lecture 5 Towards a Verifying Compiler: Multithreading Wolfram Schulte Microsoft Research Formal Methods 2006 Race Conditions, Locks, Deadlocks, Invariants,
Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants Mike Barnett, Robert DeLine, Manuel Fahndrich, K. Rustan M. Leino, Wolfram Schulte Formal techniques.
Joint work with Mike Barnett, Robert DeLine, Manuel Fahndrich, and Wolfram Schulte Verifying invariants in object-oriented programs K. Rustan M. Leino.
The Spec# programming system K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA Lunch seminar, Praxis Bath, UK 6 Dec 2005 joint work with Mike Barnett,
Bor-Yuh Evan Chang Daan Leijen Peter Müller David A. Naumann The Spec# programming system Mike Barnett Rob DeLine Manuel Fähndrich Bart Jacobs K. Rustan.
Demand-driven inference of loop invariants in a theorem prover
Object Invariants in Specification and Verification K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA Joint work with: Mike Barnett, Ádám Darvas, Manuel.
Writing specifications for object-oriented programs K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA 21 Jan 2005 Invited talk, AIOOL 2005 Paris,
1 Towards a Verifying Compiler: The Spec# Approach Wolfram Schulte Microsoft Research Formal Methods 2006 Joint work with Rustan Leino, Mike Barnett, Manuel.
Program Verification Using the Spec# Programming System ETAPS Tutorial K. Rustan M. Leino, Microsoft Research, Redmond Rosemary Monahan, NUIM Maynooth.
Technologies for finding errors in object-oriented software K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA Lecture 3 Summer school on Formal Models.
Technologies for finding errors in object-oriented software K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA Lecture 0 Summer school on Formal Models.
Spec# K. Rustan M. Leino Senior Researcher Programming Languages and Methods Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA Microsoft Research faculty summit, Redmond,
Lecture 4 Towards a Verifying Compiler: Data Abstraction Wolfram Schulte Microsoft Research Formal Methods 2006 Purity, Model fields, Inconsistency _____________.
Challenges in increasing tool support for programming K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA 23 Sep 2004 ICTAC Guiyang, Guizhou, PRC joint.
K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA 15 January 2009 Séminaire Digiteo Orsay, France.
The Spec# programming system K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA Distinguished Lecture Series Max Planck Institute for Software Systems.
Automated Software Verification with a Permission-Based Logic 20 th June 2014, Zürich Malte Schwerhoff, ETH Zürich.
Verification of Multithreaded Object- Oriented Programs with Invariants Bart Jacobs, K. Rustan M. Leino, Wolfram Schulte.
A simple sequential reasoning approach for sound modular verification of mainstream multithreaded programs Wolfram Schulte & Bart Jacobs Microsoft Research.
K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA Invited talk Informatics Education in Europe (IEE III’08)
K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA 3 December 2008 U. Lugano Lugano, Switzerland.
Leonardo de Moura Microsoft Research. Verification/Analysis tools need some form of Symbolic Reasoning.
K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA part 0 International Summer School Marktoberdorf Marktoberdorf,
Formal Methods of Systems Specification Logical Specification of Hard- and Software Prof. Dr. Holger Schlingloff Institut für Informatik der Humboldt.
ECI 2007: Specification and Verification of Object-Oriented Programs Lecture 2 Courtesy: K. Rustan M. Leino and Wolfram Schulte.
Lecture 2 Towards a Verifying Compiler: Logic of Object oriented Programs Wolfram Schulte Microsoft Research Formal Methods 2006 Objects, references, heaps,
Using and Building an Automatic Program Verifier K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond Lecture 1 LASER.
K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA part 0 Summer School on Logic and Theorem-Proving in Programming.
Building a program verifier K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA 10 May 2006 Guest lecture, Shaz Qadeer’s cse599f, Formal Verification of.
K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond Invited talk, TACAS 2007 ETAPS, Braga, Portugal 28 March 2007.
K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA with Mike Barnett, Robert DeLine, Manuel Fahndrich, and Wolfram Schulte Toward enforceable contracts.
Well-cooked Spaghetti: Weakest-Precondition of Unstructured Programs Mike Barnett and Rustan Leino Microsoft Research Redmond, WA, USA.
Using and Building an Automatic Program Verifier K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond Lecture 5 LASER.
K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA 10 Oct 2007 IFIP WG 2.3 meeting Santa Fe, NM.
K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond Caltech Pasadena, CA 12 November 2009.
Spec# K. Rustan M. Leino Senior Researcher Programming Languages and Methods Microsoft Corporation Joint work with: Mike Barnett, Robert DeLine, Manuel.
K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA part 1 Summer School on Logic and Theorem-Proving in Programming.
K. Rustan M. Leino RiSE, Microsoft Research, Redmond joint work with Peter Müller and Jan Smans Lecture 0 1 September 2009 FOSAD 2009, Bertinoro, Italy.
Software Engineering Prof. Dr. Bertrand Meyer March 2007 – June 2007 Chair of Software Engineering Static program checking and verification Slides: Based.
Leonardo de Moura and Nikolaj Bjørner Microsoft Research.
K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA 19 July 2007 Invited talk, CADE-21 Bremen, Germany.
Using and Building an Automatic Program Verifier K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond Lecture 3 Marktoberdorf.
Reasoning about object structures with Spec# K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA Joint work with: Mike Barnett, Ádám Darvas, Manuel Fähndrich,
Verification of Programs with Inspector Methods Bart Jacobs and Frank Piessens Dept. CS, K.U.Leuven, Belgium.
K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA with Mike Barnett, Robert DeLine, Manuel Fahndrich, and Wolfram Schulte Spec# Writing and checking.
Spec# Andreas Vida. Motivation Correct and maintainable software Correct and maintainable software Cost effective software production Cost effective software.
K. Rustan M. Leino Principal Researcher Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA 14 Nov 2007 Øredev Malmö, Sweden.
K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA part 3 International Summer School Marktoberdorf Marktoberdorf,
Specifying and verifying programs in Spec# K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA Invited talk, PSI 2006 Novosibirsk, Russia 27 June 2006.
K. Rustan M. Leino Research in Software Engineering (RiSE) Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA part 2 International Summer School Marktoberdorf Marktoberdorf,
K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA 15 Nov 2007 Chalmers Göteborg, Sweden.
Spec# John Lefor Program Manager Developer Division, Microsoft.
1 Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants Mike Barnett, Robert DeLine, Manuel Fahndrich, K. Rustan M. Leino, Wolfram Schulte ECOOP 2003.
K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA 8 Nov 2007 Invited talk, ASE 2007 Atlanta, GA.
Reasoning about object structures with Spec# K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA Joint work with: Mike Barnett, Ádám Darvas, Manuel Fähndrich,
George Edwards Computer Science Department Center for Systems and Software Engineering University of Southern California
Extended Static Checking for Java
Dafny An automatic program verifier for functional correctness
Specification techniques for verifying object-oriented software
Auto-active verification
Reasoning about Comprehensions with First-Order SMT Solvers
Class-local object invariants
Program Verification via an Intermediate Verification Language
Spec# Writing and checking contracts in a .NET language
Auto-active verification
Hoare-style program verification
Dafny An automatic program verifier for functional correctness
Auto-active verification
Presentation transcript:

K. Rustan M. Leino Microsoft Research, Redmond NUI Maynooth Maynooth, Ireland 8 June 2007

Mike Barnett Nikolaj Bjørner Evan Chang Ádám Darvas Rob DeLine Leo de Moura Manuel Fähndrich Diego Garbervetsky Bart Jacobs Francesco Logozzo Rosemary Monahan Michaŀ Moskal Peter Müller Madan Musuvathi Dave Naumann Simon Ou Arnd Poetzsch-Heffter Wolfram Schulte Herman Venter Angela Wallenburg …

Hoare, Joshi, Leavens, Misra, Naumann, Shankar, Woodcock, et al. “We envision a world in which computer programs are always the most reliable component of any system or device that contains them” [Hoare & Misra]

Spec# language Object-oriented.NET language More types Specifications (pre- and postconditions, etc.) Usage rules (methodology) Checking: Static type checking Run-time checking Static verification (optional)

sound modular verification focus on automation, not full functional correctness specifications no termination verification no verification of temporal properties

static verifier (Boogie) MSIL (“bytecode”) SMT solver V.C. generator Inference engine translator verification condition “correct” or list of errors Spec# compiler Spec# BoogiePL

C C Eiffel … … Java+JML Spec# Simplify Z3 CVC 3 SMT Lib Coq … … BoogiePL abstract interpreter predicate abstraction termination detector … …

type const function axiom var procedure implementation

x := E a[ i ] := E havoc x assert E assume E ; call P() if while break label: goto A, B

The code: x := 0; while (x < 0) invariant 0 ≤ x && x ≤ 10; { x := x + 1; } is equivalent to: x := 0; goto Head; Head: assert 0 ≤ x && x ≤ 10; goto Body, Done; Body: assume x < 10; x := x + 1; goto Head; Done: assume 10 ≤ x;

Given: procedure M(); requires P; modifies w; ensures Q; the code: call M(); is equivalent to: assert P; havoc w; assume Q; (ignoring old expressions, and not showing parameters)

class C : object { int x; C() { … } virtual int M(int n) { … } static void Main() { C c = new C(); c.x = 12; int y = c.M(5); } } class C : object { int x; C() { … } virtual int M(int n) { … } static void Main() { C c = new C(); c.x = 12; int y = c.M(5); } }

// class types const unique System.Object: name; const unique C: name; axiom C <: System.Object; function typeof(o: ref) returns (t: name); // fields type field; const unique C.x: field; const unique allocated: field; // the heap var Heap: [ref, field] int; class C : object { int x; class C : object { int x;

// method declarations procedure C..ctor(this: ref); requires this != null && typeof(this) <: C; modifies Heap; procedure C.M(this: ref, n: int) returns (result: int); requires this != null && typeof(this) <: C; modifies Heap; procedure C.Main(); modifies Heap; C() { … } virtual int M(int n) static void Main() C() { … } virtual int M(int n) static void Main()

// method implementations implementation C.Main() { var c: ref, y: int; havoc c; assume c != null; assume Heap[c, allocated] == 0; assume typeof(c) == C; Heap[c, allocated] := 1; call C..ctor(c); assert c != null; Heap[c, C.x] := 12; call y := C.M(c, 5); } C c = new C(); c.x = 12; int y = c.M(5);

class C { int f; object g; } var f: [ref] int; var g: [ref] ref; type Field; type Value; var Heap: [ref, Field] Value; function V2I(Value) returns (int); function I2V (int) returns (Value); axiom (  v: Value  I2V(V2I(v)) == v); axiom (  i: int  V2I(I2V(i)) == i); type Field  ; var Heap: (   [ref, Field  ]  ); x = c.f; x := f [ c ]; x = c.f; x := V2I(Heap[ c, f ]); x = c.f; x := Heap[ c, f ];

public string NextChunk() modifies this.*; ensures result.Length <= ChunkSize; public string NextChunk() modifies this.*; ensures result.Length <= ChunkSize;

procedure Chunker.NextChunk(this: ref where $IsNotNull(this, Chunker)) returns ($result: ref where $IsNotNull($result, System.String)); // in-parameter: target object free requires $Heap[this, $allocated]; requires ($Heap[this, $ownerFrame] == $PeerGroupPlaceholder || !($Heap[$Heap[this, $ownerRef], $inv] $Heap[$pc, $inv] == $typeof($pc) && $Heap[$pc, $localinv] == $typeof($pc)); // out-parameter: return value free ensures $Heap[$result, $allocated]; ensures ($Heap[$result, $ownerFrame] == $PeerGroupPlaceholder || !($Heap[$Heap[$result, $ownerRef], $inv] $Heap[$pc, $inv] == $typeof($pc) && $Heap[$pc, $localinv] == $typeof($pc)); // user-declared postconditions ensures $StringLength($result) <= $Heap[this, Chunker.ChunkSize]; // frame condition modifies $Heap; free ensures (forall $o: ref, $f: name :: { $Heap[$o, $f] } $f != $inv && $f != $localinv && $f != $FirstConsistentOwner && (!IsStaticField($f) || !IsDirectlyModifiableField($f)) && $o != null && old($Heap)[$o, $allocated] && (old($Heap)[$o, $ownerFrame] == $PeerGroupPlaceholder || !(old($Heap)[old($Heap)[$o, $ownerRef], $inv] old($Heap)[$o, $f] == $Heap[$o, $f]); // boilerplate free requires $BeingConstructed == null; free ensures (forall $o: ref :: { $Heap[$o, $localinv] } { $Heap[$o, $inv] } $o != null && !old($Heap)[$o, $allocated] && $Heap[$o, $allocated] ==> $Heap[$o, $inv] == $typeof($o) && $Heap[$o, $localinv] == $typeof($o)); free ensures (forall $o: ref :: { $Heap[$o, $FirstConsistentOwner] } old($Heap)[old($Heap)[$o, $FirstConsistentOwner], $exposeVersion] == $Heap[old($Heap)[$o, $FirstConsistentOwner], $exposeVersion] ==> old($Heap)[$o, $FirstConsistentOwner] == $Heap[$o, $FirstConsistentOwner]); free ensures (forall $o: ref :: { $Heap[$o, $localinv] } { $Heap[$o, $inv] } old($Heap)[$o, $allocated] ==> old($Heap)[$o, $inv] == $Heap[$o, $inv] && old($Heap)[$o, $localinv] == $Heap[$o, $localinv]); free ensures (forall $o: ref :: { $Heap[$o, $allocated] } old($Heap)[$o, $allocated] ==> $Heap[$o, $allocated]) && (forall $ot: ref :: { $Heap[$ot, $ownerFrame] } { $Heap[$ot, $ownerRef] } old($Heap)[$ot, $allocated] && old($Heap)[$ot, $ownerFrame] != $PeerGroupPlaceholder ==> old($Heap)[$ot, $ownerRef] == $Heap[$ot, $ownerRef] && old($Heap)[$ot, $ownerFrame] == $Heap[$ot, $ownerFrame]) && old($Heap)[$BeingConstructed, $NonNullFieldsAreInitialized] == $Heap[$BeingConstructed, $NonNullFieldsAreInitialized];

Instantiation via e-graph matching A matching pattern (trigger) is a set of terms that together mention all the bound variables, and none of which is just a bound variable by itself Examples: (  x  { f(x) } 0 ≤ f(x)) (  x,y  { g(x,y) } f(x) < g(x,y))

(  x,y  { f(x), f(y) } x ≤ y  f(x) ≤ f(y)) (  x  { f(x) } x ≠ null  f(x) ≤ f(next(x))) (  x  { f(next(x)) } x ≠ null  f(x) ≤ f(next(x))) (  x,y  { f(x), f(y) } f(x) = f(y)  x = y) (  x  { f(x) } fInv(f(x)) = x) (  x  { f(x+1) } f(x) ≤ f(x+1)) (  x,y,z  { x*(y+z) } x*(y+z) = x*y + x*z) (  x,y  { P(x,y) } x = y  P(x,y) = 10) (  x  { P(x,x) } P(x,x) = 10)

Download Spec# and Boogie from here Spec# is an object-oriented language with specifications BoogiePL is an intermediate verification language Separates concerns Enables sharing in the verification community front ends for multiple languages benchmarks abstract interpretation VC generation multiple theorem provers predicate abstraction …