Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scalability of Deductive Verification Depends on Method Call Treatment

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Industrial Practice (ISoLA 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 11247))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Today, software verification is vital for safety-critical and security-critical applications applied in industry. However, specifying large-scale software systems for efficient verification still demands high effort and expertise. In deductive verification, design by contract is a widespread software methodology to explicitly specify the behavior of programs using Hoare-style pre- and postconditions in a modular fashion. During verification, a method call can either be replaced by an available method contract or by inlining the method’s implementation. We argue that neither approach alone is feasible for verifying real-world software systems. Only relying on method inlining does not scale, as the number of inlined methods may lead to a combinatorial explosion. But specifying software is in itself notoriously hard and time-consuming, making it economically unrealistic to specify large-scale software completely. We discuss circumstances in which one of the two approaches is preferred. We evaluate the program verifier KeY with large programs varying in the number of method calls of each method and the maximum depth of the stack trace. Our analyses show that specifying 10% additional methods in a program can reduce the verification costs by up-to 50%, and, thus, an effective combination of contracting and method inlining is indispensable for the scalability of deductive verification.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.github.com/AlexanderKnueppel/MethodCallTreatment.

References

  1. Ahrendt, W., Beckert, B., Bubel, R., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H., Ulbrich, M.: Deductive Software Verification – The KeY Book: From Theory to Practice, vol. 10001. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49812-6

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahrendt, W., Dylla, M.: A system for compositional verification of asynchronous objects. Sci. Comput. Program. 77(12), 1289–1309 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Albarghouthi, A., Dillig, I., Gurfinkel, A.: Maximal specification synthesis. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 51, 789–801 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barnett, M., Fähndrich, M., Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P., Schulte, W., Venter, H.: Specification and verification: the Spec# experience. Comm. ACM 54, 81–91 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baumann, C., Beckert, B., Blasum, H., Bormer, T.: Lessons learned from microkernel verification-specification is the new bottleneck. SSV, pp. 18–32 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beckert, B., Grebing, S., Böhl, F.: How to put usability into focus: using focus groups to evaluate the usability of interactive theorem provers. In: Workshop on User Interfaces for Theorem Provers (UITP) (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beckert, B., Klebanov, V.: A dynamic logic for deductive verification of concurrent java programs with condition variables. In: Satellite Workshop at CONCUR, p. 3 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bobot, F., Filliâtre, J.-C., Marché, C., Paskevich, A.: Why3: shepherd your herd of provers. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Intermediate Verification Languages, pp. 53–64 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Boldo, S.: Deductive formal verification: how to make your floating-point programs behave. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Sud (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Borgida, A., Mylopoulos, J., Reiter, R.: On the frame problem in procedure specifications. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (TSE) 21(10), 785–798 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Braibant, T., Jourdan, J.-H., Monniaux, D.: Implementing and reasoning about hash-consed data structures in Coq. J. Autom. Reason. 53(3), 271–304 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Brillout, A., Kroening, D., Rümmer, P., Wahl, T.: An interpolating sequent calculus for quantifier-free presburger arithmetic. In: Giesl, J., Hähnle, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6173, pp. 384–399. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14203-1_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Bruns, D., Klebanov, V., Schaefer, I.: Verification of software product lines with delta-oriented slicing. In: Beckert, B., Marché, C. (eds.) FoVeOOS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6528, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18070-5_5

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Buchwald, H., Meyerer, F.: C4J: Contracts, Java und Eclipse. Eclipse Mag. 13(3), 64–69 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Burstall, R.: Program Proving as Hand Simulation with a Little Induction. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1974)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Charguéraud, A.: Characteristic formulae for the verification of imperative programs. In: Proceedings of International Conference Functional Programming (ICFP), vol. 46, pp. 418–430. ACM (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cok, D.R.: OpenJML: JML for Java 7 by extending OpenJDK. In: Bobaru, M., Havelund, K., Holzmann, G.J., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6617, pp. 472–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20398-5_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Cok, D.R., Johnson, S.C.: SPEEDY: an eclipse-based IDE for invariant inference. In: Workshop on Formal Integrated Development Environment (F-IDE), 149 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dahlweid, M., Moskal, M., Santen, T., Tobies, S., Schulte, W.: VCC: contract-based modular verification of concurrent C. In: Companion International Conference Software Engineering (ICSEC), pp. 429–430. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  20. de Gouw, S., de Boer, F., Ahrendt, W., Bubel, R.: Integrating deductive verification and symbolic execution for abstract object creation in dynamic logic. Softw. Syst. Model. 15, 1–24 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  21. de Gouw, S., Rot, J., de Boer, F.S., Bubel, R., Hähnle, R.: OpenJDK’s Java.utils.Collection.sort() is broken: the good, the bad and the worst case. In: Kroening, D., Păsăreanu, C.S. (eds.) CAV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9206, pp. 273–289. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Dijkstra, E.W.: A Discipline of Programming, 1st edn. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1976)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. El Ghazi, A.A., Ulbrich, M., Gladisch, C., Tyszberowicz, S., Taghdiri, M.: JKelloy: a proof assistant for relational specifications of java programs. In: Badger, J.M., Rozier, K.Y. (eds.) NFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8430, pp. 173–187. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06200-6_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Engel, C.: Deductive verification of safety-critical Java programs. Ph.D. thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Filliâtre, J.-C.: Deductive program verification. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Floyd, R.W.: Assigning meanings to programs. Math. Aspects Comput. Sci. 19, 19–32 (1967)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Fowler, M.: Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2000)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Hähnle, R., Schaefer, I., Bubel, R.: Reuse in software verification by abstract method calls. In: Bonacina, M.P. (ed.) CADE 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7898, pp. 300–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38574-2_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Hatcliff, J., Leavens, G.T., Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P., Parkinson, M.: Behavioral interface specification languages. ACM Comput. Surv. 44(3), 16:1–16:58 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Comm. ACM 12(10), 576–580 (1969)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hoare, T.: The verifying compiler: a grand challenge for computing research. In: Böszörményi, L., Schojer, P. (eds.) JMLC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2789, pp. 25–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45213-3_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20398-5_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Ji, R., Bubel, R.: PE-KeY: a partial evaluator for Java programs. In: Derrick, J., Gnesi, S., Latella, D., Treharne, H. (eds.) IFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7321, pp. 283–295. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30729-4_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Leavens, G.T., Cheon, Y.: Design by Contract with JML, September 2006

    Google Scholar 

  36. Leino, K.R.M.: Dafny: an automatic program verifier for functional correctness. In: Clarke, E.M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6355, pp. 348–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17511-4_20

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Leino, K.R.M.: Automating induction with an SMT solver. In: Kuncak, V., Rybalchenko, A. (eds.) VMCAI 2012. LNCS, vol. 7148, pp. 315–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27940-9_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Meyer, B.: Object-Oriented Software Construction, 1st edn. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mostowski, W.: Fully verified Java card API reference implementation. Verify, 7 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Posegga, J., Vogt, H.: Byte code verification for Java smart cards based on model checking. In: Quisquater, J.-J., Deswarte, Y., Meadows, C., Gollmann, D. (eds.) ESORICS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1485, pp. 175–190. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0055863

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Reif, W.: The Kiv-approach to software verification. In: Broy, M., Jähnichen, S. (eds.) KORSO: Methods, Languages, and Tools for the Construction of Correct Software. LNCS, vol. 1009, pp. 339–368. Springer, Heidelberg (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0015471

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Schreiner, W.: Computer-assisted program reasoning based on a relational semantics of programs. In: First Workshop on CTP Components for Educational Software (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Schumann, J.M.: Automated Theorem Proving in Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-22646-9

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Suter, P., Dotta, M., Kuncak, V.: Decision procedures for algebraic data types with abstractions. Proc. Symp. Princ. Program. Lang. (POPL) 45(1), 199–210 (2010)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Swamy, N., et al.: Dependent types and multi-monadic effects in F*. In: Proceedings of Symposium Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), vol. 51, pp. 256–270. ACM (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  46. ter Beek, M.H., de Vink, E.P., Willemse, T.A.: Towards a feature mu-Calculus targeting SPL verification. In: Proceedings of International Workshop Formal Methods and Analysis in Software Product Line Engineering (FMSPLE), pp. 61–75 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Thüm, T., Schaefer, I., Apel, S., Hentschel, M.: Family-based deductive verification of software product lines. In: Proceeding of International Conference Generative Programming and Component Engineering (GPCE), vol. 48, pp. 11–20. ACM (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Trentelman, K.: Proving correctness of JavaCard DL Taclets using Bali. In: Proceedings of International Conference Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM), pp. 160–169. IEEE (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Walter, D.: A formal verification environment for use in the certification of safety-related C-programs. Ph.D. thesis, Bremen, University, Dissertation (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wampler, D.: Contract4J for design by contract in Java: design pattern-like protocols and aspect interfaces. In: Fifth AOSD Workshop on ACP4IS, pp. 27–30. Citeseer (2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the DFG (German Research Foundation) under the Researcher Unit FOR1800: Controlling Concurrent Change (CCC). We gratefully acknowledge Richard Bubel for fruitful discussions and valuable feedback throughout this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TU Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany

    Alexander Knüppel, Thomas Thüm, Carsten Padylla & Ina Schaefer

Authors
  1. Alexander Knüppel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Thüm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carsten Padylla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ina Schaefer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Knüppel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    Tiziana Margaria

  2. TU Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany

    Bernhard Steffen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Knüppel, A., Thüm, T., Padylla, C., Schaefer, I. (2018). Scalability of Deductive Verification Depends on Method Call Treatment. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds) Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Industrial Practice. ISoLA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11247. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03427-6_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03427-6_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03426-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03427-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation