Maxime Cordy
Pierre-Yves Schobbens
ABSTRACT
The model-checking problem for Software Products Lines (SPLs) is harder than for single systems: variability constitutes a new source of complexity that exacerbates the state-explosion problem. Abstraction techniques have successfully alleviated state explosion in single-system models. However, they need to be adapted to SPLs, to take into account the set of variants that produce a counterexample. In this paper, we apply CEGAR (Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement) and we design new forms of abstraction specifically for SPLs. We carry out experiments to evaluate the efficiency of our new abstractions. The results show that our abstractions, combined with an appropriate refinement strategy, hold the potential to achieve large reductions in verification time, although they sometimes perform worse. We discuss in which cases a given abstraction should be used.
- A. Albarghouthi, Y. Li, A. Gurfinkel, and M. Chechik. Ufo: A framework for abstraction- and interpolation-based software verification. In CAV, pages 672–678, 2012. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- S. Apel, H. Speidel, P. Wendler, A. von Rhein, and D. Beyer. Feature-interaction detection using feature-aware verification. In ASE’11, pages 372–375. IEEE, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Apel, A. von Rhein, P. Wendler, A. Größlinger, and D. Beyer. Strategies for product-line verification: case studies and experiments. In ICSE’13, pages 482–491, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Asirelli, M. H. ter Beek, A. Fantechi, and S. Gnesi. Formal description of variability in product families. In SPLC’11, pages 130–139. Springer-Verlag, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Baier and J.-P. Katoen. Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, 2007.Google Scholar
- D. Beyer. Second competition on software verification - (summary of sv-comp 2013). In TACAS ’13, pages 594–609, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Beyer and M. E. Keremoglu. Cpachecker: A tool for configurable software verification. In CAV ’11, pages 184–190, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Q. Boucher, A. Classen, P. Heymans, A. Bourdoux, and L. Demonceau. Tag and prune: A pragmatic approach to software product line implementation. In ASE’10, pages 333–336. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Bruns and P. Godefroid. Model checking with multi-valued logics. In ICALP ’04, pages 281–293, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Chechik, B. Devereux, and A. Gurfinkel. Model-checking infinite state-space systems with fine-grained abstractions using spin. In SPIN ’01, pages 16–36, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, and H. Veith. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In E. Emerson and A. Sistla, editors, Computer Aided Verification, volume 1855 of LNCS, pages 154–169. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D. Peled. Model Checking. MIT Press, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Clarke, D. Kroening, N. Sharygina, and K. Yorav. Predicate abstraction of ansi-c programs using sat. Form. Methods Syst. Des., 25(2-3):105–127, Sept. 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Classen, M. Cordy, P. Heymans, A. Legay, and P.-Y. Schobbens. Model checking software product lines with SNIP. STTT, 14(5):589–612, 2012.Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Classen, M. Cordy, P. Heymans, P.-Y. Schobbens, and A. Legay. Snip: An efficient model checker for software product lines. Technical report, University of Namur (FUNDP), 2011.Google Scholar
- A. Classen, M. Cordy, P.-Y. Schobbens, P. Heymans, A. Legay, and J.-F. cois Raskin. Featured transition systems: Foundations for verifying variability-intensive systems and their application to LTL model checking. Transactions on Software Engineering, pages 1069–1089, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Classen, P. Heymans, P.-Y. Schobbens, and A. Legay. Symbolic model checking of software product lines. In ICSE’11, pages 321–330. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Classen, P. Heymans, P.-Y. Schobbens, A. Legay, and J.-F. Raskin. Model checking lots of systems: efficient verification of temporal properties in software product lines. In ICSE’10, pages 335–344. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. C. Clements and L. Northrop. Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, August 2001.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS). CCSDS File Delivery Protocol (CFDP): Blue Book, Issue 4. NASA, 2007.Google Scholar
- M. Cordy, A. Classen, P. Heymans, P.-Y. Schobbens, and A. Legay. Managing evolution in software product lines : A model-checking perspective. In VaMoS’12, pages 183–191. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Cordy, A. Classen, G. Perrouin, P. Heymans, P.-Y. Schobbens, and A. Legay. Simulation-based abstractions for software product-line model checking. In ICSE’12, pages 672–682. IEEE, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Cordy, P.-Y. Schobbens, P. Heymans, and A. Legay. Provelines: A product-line of verifiers for software product lines. In SPLC’13, pages 141–146. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Craig. Three Uses of the Herbrand-Gentzen Theorem in Relating Model Theory and Proof Theory. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 22(3):269–285, 1957.Google Scholar
- S. Falke, F. Merz, and C. Sinz. The bounded model checker llbmc. In ASE ’13, pages 706–709, 2013.Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Fischbein, S. Uchitel, and V. Braberman. A foundation for behavioural conformance in software product line architectures. In ROSATEA’06, ISSTA 2006 workshop, pages 39–48. ACM Press, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Graf and H. Sa¨ıdi. Construction of abstract state graphs with pvs. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV ’97, pages 72–83, London, UK, UK, 1997. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Gruler, M. Leucker, and K. Scheidemann. Modeling and model checking software product lines. In FMOODS’08, pages 113–131. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. J. Holzmann. The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Kang, S. Cohen, J. Hess, W. Novak, and S. Peterson. Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, 1990.Google Scholar
- J. Kramer, J. Magee, M. Sloman, and A. Lister. Conic: an integrated approach to distributed computer control systems. Computers and Digital Techniques, IEE Proceedings E, 130(1):1–10, 1983.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Liebig, A. von Rhein, C. Kästner, S. Apel, J. Dörre, and C. Lengauer. Scalable analysis of variable software. In ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE ’11, pages 81–91, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Milner. An algebraic definition of simulation between programs. Technical report, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, 1971. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Morse, L. Cordeiro, D. Nicole, and B. Fischer. Handling unbounded loops with esbmc 1.20 - (competition contribution). In TACAS, pages 619–622, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Plath and M. Ryan. Feature integration using a feature construct. SCP, 41(1):53–84, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Pnueli. The temporal logic of programs. In FOCS’77, pages 46–57, 1977. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Post and C. Sinz. Configuration lifting: Verification meets software configuration. In ASE’08, pages 347–350. IEEE CS, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P.-Y. Schobbens, P. Heymans, J.-C. Trigaux, and Y. Bontemps. Feature Diagrams: A Survey and A Formal Semantics. In RE’06, pages 139–148, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Counterexample guided abstraction refinement of product-line behavioural models
Recommendations
Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking
The state explosion problem remains a major hurdle in applying symbolic model checking to large hardware designs. State space abstraction, having been essential for verifying designs of industrial complexity, is typically a manual process, requiring ...
SAT-based counterexample-guided abstraction refinement
We describe new techniques for model checking in the counterexample-guided abstraction-refinement framework. The abstraction phase "hides" the logic of various variables, hence considering them as inputs. This type of abstraction may lead to "spurious" ...
A counterexample-guided abstraction-refinement framework for markov decision processes
The main challenge in using abstractions effectively is to construct a suitable abstraction for the system being verified. One approach that tries to address this problem is that of counterexample guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR), wherein one ...
Comments