Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Region analysis for deductive verification of C programs

  • Published:
Programming and Computer Software Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a memory model with nonoverlapping memory areas (regions) for the deductive verification of C programs. This memory model uses a core language that supports arbitrary nesting of structures, unions, and arrays into other structures and allows reducing the number of user-provided annotations as a result of region analysis. This paper also describes semantics of the core language and normalizing transformations for translating an input annotated C program into a program in the core language. In addition, an encoding is proposed for modeling the memory state of a core-language program with logical formulas as described by the model semantics of the core language. For the model semantics, the soundness and completeness theorems are proved. Additional constraints on the typing context of the core-language terms are described that determine the result of the region analysis enabling the complete modeling of a limited class of programs without using additional annotations. A proof sketch for the theorem stating completeness of the proposed region analysis for a limited class of programs is presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kroening, D. and Strichman, O., Decision Procedures: An Algorithmic Point of View, Springer, 2008.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Hoare, C.A.R., An axiomatic basis for computer programming, Commun. ACM, 1969, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 576–580. doi 10.1145/363235.363259

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Floyd, R.W., Assigning meaning to programs, Mathematical Aspects of Computer Science: Proc. American Mathematics Soc. Symposia, Schwartz, J.T., Ed., 1967, vol. 19, pp. 19–31.

  4. Dijkstra, E.W., Guarded commands, non-determinacy, and formal derivation of programs, Commun. ACM, 1975, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 453–457.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Reynolds, J.C., Separation logic: A logic for shared mutable data structures, Proc. 17th Annual IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), Washington, 2002, pp. 55–74. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id =645683.664578.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Piskac, R., Wies, T., and Zufferey, D., Automating separation logic using SMT, Computer Aided Verification, Sharygina, N. and Veith, H., Eds., Berlin: Springer, 2013, pp. 773–789. doi 10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_54

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Botincan, M., Parkinson, M., and Schulte, W., Separation logic verification of C programs with an SMT solver, Electron. Notes Theor. Comp. Sci., 2008. http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id= 77372.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Navarro, P.J.A. and Rybalchenko, A., Separation logic + superposition calculus = heap theorem prover, Proc. 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), New York, 2011, pp. 556–566. doi 10.1145/1993498.199356310.1145/1993498.1993563

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Cuoq, P., Kirchner, F., Kosmatov, N., et al., Frama-C: A software analysis perspective, Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM), Berlin: Springer, 2012, pp. 233–247. doi 10.1007/978-3-642-33826-7_1610.1007/978-3-642-33826-7_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Moy, Y., Automatic modular static safety checking for C programs, Ph.D. thesis, Paris, 2009. http://www.lri.fr /~marche/moy09phd.pdf.

  11. Cohen, E., Dahlweid, M., Hillebrand, M., et al., VCC: A practical system for verifying concurrent C, Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLs), Berlin: Springer, 2009, pp. 23–42. doi 10.1007/978-3-642-03359-9_210.1007/978-3-642-03359-9_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Burstall, R.M., Some techniques for proving correctness of programs which alter data structures, Mach. Intell., 1972, vol. 7, nos. 23–50.

  13. Bornat, R., Proving pointer programs in Hoare logic, Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Mathematics of Program Construction (MPC), London, 2000, pp. 102–126. http://dl.acm.org /citation.cfm?id=648085.747307.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Hubert, T. and Marche, C., Separation analysis for deductive verification, Proc. Heap Analysis and Verification (HAV), Braga, 2007, pp. 81–93. http://www.lri.fr /~marche/hubert07hav.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Milner, R., A theory of type polymorphism in programming, J. Comp. Syst. Sci., 1978, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 348–375.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Moy, Y., Union and cast in deductive verification, Proc. C/C++ Verification Workshop, Nijmegen, 2007, pp. 1–16. http://www.lri.fr/~moy/Publis/moy07ccpp.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mandrykin, M.U. and Khoroshilov, A.V., High-level memory model with low-level pointer cast support for Jessie intermediate language, Program. Comput. Software, 2015, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 197–207.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Russian Linux Verification Center, Linux deductive verification. http://www.linuxtesting.ru/astraver.

  19. Cohen, E., Moskal, M., Tobies, S., and Schulte, W., A precise yet efficient memory model for C, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 2009, vol. 254, pp. 85–103. doi 10.1016/j.entcs.2009.09.061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pierce, B.C., Types and Programming Languages, MIT Press, 2002.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Dijkstra, E.W., A Discipline of Programming, Prentice Hall, 1976. https://books.google.ru/books?id=MsUmAAAAMAAJ.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohen, E., Moskal, M., Schulte, W., and Tobies, S., A practical verification methodology for concurrent programs. http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=79554.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for System Programming, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Solzhenitsyna 25, Moscow, 109004, Russia

    M. U. Mandrykin & A. V. Khoroshilov

  2. Moscow State University, Moscow, 119991, Russia

    A. V. Khoroshilov

  3. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Institutskii per. 9, Dolgoprudnyi, Moscow oblast, 141700, Russia

    A. V. Khoroshilov

  4. National Research University Higher School of Economics, ul. Myasnitskaya 20, Moscow, 101000, Russia

    A. V. Khoroshilov

Authors
  1. M. U. Mandrykin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. V. Khoroshilov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. U. Mandrykin.

Additional information

Original Russian Text © M.U. Mandrykin, A.V. Khoroshilov, 2016, published in Programmirovanie, 2016, Vol. 42, No. 5.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mandrykin, M.U., Khoroshilov, A.V. Region analysis for deductive verification of C programs. Program Comput Soft 42, 257–278 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768816050042

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768816050042

Search

Navigation