1 / 39

Automatic Debugging and Verification of RTL-Specified Real-Time Systems

Automatic Debugging and Verification of RTL-Specified Real-Time Systems. Albert M. K. Cheng Real-Time Systems Laboratory and Institute for Space Systems Operations University of Houston, Texas, USA. Real-Time Systems [JahanianMok86, JahanianMok87, Cheng02].

dexter-short
Download Presentation

Automatic Debugging and Verification of RTL-Specified Real-Time Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Automatic Debugging and Verification of RTL-Specified Real-Time Systems Albert M. K. Cheng Real-Time Systems Laboratory and Institute for Space Systems Operations University of Houston, Texas, USA University of Houston

  2. Real-Time Systems [JahanianMok86, JahanianMok87, Cheng02] • Structural-functional specification • Behavioral specification (SP) • An implementation is correct if • SP implies the safety assertions (SA) • Structural-functional specification • Behavioral specification (SP) • An implementation is correct if • SP implies the safety assertions (SA) University of Houston

  3. Verification of Timing Properties [JahanianMok86, JahanianMok87, Cheng02] • In checking SP → SA, we may have the cases: • (safe) SA is a theorem derivable from SP; • (inherently unsafe) SA is unsatisfiable with respect to SP; • (safe if additional constraints are added) the negation of SA is satisfiable under certain conditions. University of Houston

  4. Our Incremental Approach for Systematic Debugging University of Houston

  5. Details of the Approach • The satisfiability of SPk+1→SAk+1 is expressed incrementally from the satisfiability of SPk→SAk • The manual debugging in step 3 is correlated with the satisfiability of SPk→SAk • We use #SAT problem rather than SAT problem: • To know how “far away” is SP from satisfying SA; • The modification of SP and/or SA is useful for incremental debugging, in which bugs are fixed one at a time until the system is correct. University of Houston

  6. Motivations and Achievements • Since industrial real-time systems may have large specifications, it is impractical for the designer to find the proper missing or wrong constraints. • The debugging in step 3 is done systematically, not manually. • Efficient Java implementation of systematic debugging. Examples of real-time systems have also been successfully tested by SDRTL. • We simulate a real-life scenario, supposing that the designer may forget to include some constraints or may give some incorrect constraints. University of Houston

  7. Real-Time Logic (RTL) [JahanianMok86] • RTL = first-order logic with special features to capture the timing requirements; • Occurrence Function:@:: Event x Occurrence  Time, where Occurrence = Nat - {0} and Time = Nat. • @(e, i) = t means the i-th occurrence of event e occurs at time t. • eEvent, iOccurrence, @(e,i) < @(e,i+1) if @(e,i+1) is defined University of Houston

  8. Real-Time Logic (cont) • Three types of RTL constants: • Actions: schedulable units of work • Events constants are temporal markers • External Events: event-name • Start Events: event-name • Stop Events: event-name • Integers: used for timing constraints. University of Houston

  9. Example: Railroad crossing 60s 45s University of Houston

  10. SP of Railroad Crossing – English and RTL • When train approaches sensor, a signal will initiate the lowering of gate, and Gate is moved to down position within 30s from being detected by the sensor, and • x ( @(TrainApproach, x)  @(DownGate, x)  @(DownGate, x)  @(TrainApproach, x) + 30 ) • The gate needs at least 15s to lower itself to the down position. • y ( @(DownGate, y) + 15  @(DownGate, y) ) University of Houston

  11. SAof Railroad Crossing – English and RTL • If train needs at least 45s to travel from sensor to the railroad crossing, and the train crossing is completed within 60s from being detected by sensor, then • we are assured that at the start of the train crossing, gate has moved down and • that the train leaves the railroad crossing within 45s from the time the gate has completed moving down. • t u ( @(TrainApproach, t) + 45 @(TrainCrossing, u)  @(TrainCrossing, u) < @(TrainApproach, t) + 60  @(TrainCrossing, u)  @(DownGate, t)  @(TrainCrossing, u)  @(DownGate, t) + 45 ) University of Houston

  12. The Path-RTL formulas • The general form of path-RTL formulas: functionOccurrence integerConstant  functionOccurrence • Industrial real-time systems: • Railroad crossing [JahanianMok87], [JahanianStuart88], [Cheng2002] • Moveable control rods in a reactor [JahanianMok87] • Boeing 777 Integrated Airplane Information Management System [MTR96] • X-38, an autonomous spacecraft build by NASA [RiceCheng99] University of Houston

  13. Presburger Arithmetic Formulae • Each @(e,i) is replaced by an uninterpreted function fe(i) • SP: • x (f(x)  g1(x)  g2(x)  f(x) + 30) • y (g1(y) + 15  g2(y)) • SA: • t u ( f(t) + 45 h1(u)  h2(u) < f(t) + 60  g2(t)  h1(u)  h2(u)  g2(t) + 45 ) University of Houston

  14. Railroad Crossing - Clausal Form •  (SP SA)  (SP SA) SP  SA • SP SA is a theorem iff SP  SA is unsatisfiable; • SP: • xy (f(x)  g1(x)  g2(x) - 30  f(x)  g1(y) + 15  g2(y)) • Negation of SA: t u (f(t) + 45 h1(u)  h2(u) < f(t) + 60  (h1(u) < g2(t)  g2(t) + 45 < h2(u))); • Skolem normal form of path-RTL formulas [T/t][U/u]: f(T) + 45 h1(U)  h2(U) – 59  f(T)  (h1(U) + 1 g2(T)  g2(T) + 46  h2(U)) University of Houston

  15. Constraint Graph Technique • F – the initial path-RTL formula; • F’ – the corresponding Presburger formula; • PF = C1 C2 …  Cn is the propositional formula of SP  SA: • Ci = Li,1 Li,2 …  Li,n and • each Li,j has the general form: v1 I  v2, I being a positive integer constant. • For each Xi,1, Xi,2,…, Xi,ni the i-th positive cycle, the clause Xi,1 Xi,2 … Xi,ni is added to PF. University of Houston

  16. Counting SAT Problem • PF={C1,…,Cl} over V. If C1’,…,Cs’  PF and s  l, then: • mV(C1’,…,Cs’)= number of variables from V which do not occur in C1’ …  Cs’. • difV(C1’,…,Cs’)= • 0 if  i, j  {1,…,s}, i  j,  L literal such that L  Ci’ and L  Cj’ • 2mV(C1’,…,Cs’) otherwise University of Houston

  17. Incremental Counting SAT • detV(PF)= 2n- s=1l (-1)s+1* 1 i1<…<isl difV(C1’,…,Cs’) is called the determinant of PF. • Theorem. PF has detV(PF) truth assignments. So, PF is satisfiable iff detV(PF)  0. • Problem: Knowing the number of true instances of PF, what is the number of true instances of PFυ{C}, for any arbitrary clause C? • Incremental computation: get detV(PF2) using detV(PF1), without re-computing the common parts of PF2 and PF1 University of Houston

  18. Increment of a Clausal Formula • Definition: Given PF={C1,…,Cl} over V and C an arbitrary clause, then incV(C,PF)=s=0l(-1)s+1 * 1 i1<…<isl difV(C,Ci1,…,Cis) is called the increment of PF with C over V. • Theorem: Let PF={C1,…,Cl} be a clausal formula and PF’={Cl+1,…,Cl+k}. Then: • detV(PFυPF’) = detV(PF) + incV(Cl+1, PF) + incV(Cl+2, PFυ{Cl+1}) + .. + incV(Cl+k, PFυ{Cl+1,.., Cl+k-1}) • Incremental computing is optimal University of Houston

  19. Related Work: Incremental Approaches • An incremental positive cycle detection algorithm [MTR96] is also based on the constraint-graph technique and uses an algorithm for single source with positive weight in the graph. • An incremental algorithm for model checking using transition systems in the alternation-free fragment of the modal mu-calculus was presented in [SoS94]. • Instead, our incremental approach is applied to propositional formulas. University of Houston

  20. History of SAT and #SAT problems • The SAT problem • [Cook, 1971] • The #SAT problem • [Valiant, 1979] • The incremental SAT problem • [Hooker, 1993] • The incremental #SAT problem • [Andrei & Chin, 2004] University of Houston

  21. Railroad Crossing - Constraint Graph (1) • PF1={{A1}, {A2}, {A3}, {A4}, {A5}, {A6, A7}, {A2,A4,A6}, {A4,A5,A6,A7}, {A1,A3,A5,A7}}. • detV1(PF1)=0, where V1={A1, ..., A7}. University of Houston

  22. Re-design of Railroad Example • We consider 2 new events (CarCrossingLeft - CCL and CarCrossingRight – CCR) and 2 new constraints • We add to SP: • (English) A car from the left or right needs at most 10 seconds to cross the railroad; • (RTL)  z1, @(CCL, z1) – 10  @(CCL, z1) and  z2, @(CCR, z2) – 10  @(CCR, z2) • We add to SA: • (English) If the train starts to cross the railroad crossing, there is no car crossing neither from left nor from the right in the last 5 seconds; • (RTL)  v1, @(CCL, v1) + 5  @(TrainCrossing, u) and  v2, @(CCR, v2) + 5  @(TrainCrossing, u) University of Houston

  23. Railroad Crossing - Constraint Graph (2) • PF2=PF1 {{A8}, {A9}, {A6, A7, A10, A11}} – {{A6, A7}} • detV2(PF2)=detV1(PF1)+ incV2({A8}, PF1)+ incV2({A9}, PF1 {{A8}}) + incV2({A6, A7, A10, A11}, PF1 {{A8}}  {{A9}})- incV2({A6, A7}, PF1 {{A8}}  {{A9}}  {{A6, A7, A10, A11}}) =3, where V2= V1 {A8, ..., A11}. • As detV2(PF2)>0, then the real-time system is unsafe. University of Houston

  24. Debugging Computation. Manual versus Systematic • Manual debugging is impractical for big systems. • There is a need to consider a systematic way to solve this matter. • The method will automatically generate, in order from the most probable ones to the less probable ones, all the possible missing constraints. • Then the designer chooses from this list the proper constraint which is not against the real-time system specifications. University of Houston

  25. Railroad Crossing - Constraint Graph (2) • (Init) construct PF1 • (Test & Print) test if the determinant is 0 and if the designer agrees with the suggested constraint according to the systematic debugging computation • (Incremental Computation) compute detVk+1(PFk+1) using detVk(PFk) • (desired == false) is evaluated to false when the designer wishes to stop the systematic debugging and the timing constraints of the real-time system are fulfilled. Algorithm Main: (Init) desired = false; while (desired == false) { (Test & Print) if (desired == false) { (Incremental Computation) (Debugging Computation) } } University of Houston

  26. Addition of a New Arc • It shows that the node v has no out-arc; • So the arc (v,w) (pictured with a dashed line) is added to the constraint graph as a member of a new positive cycle. University of Houston

  27. Transforming a Negative Cycle • The algorithm detects all possible incorrect constraints (i.e. containing a fault). • That is, the algorithm proposes other (bigger) constants I for the literal v1 ± I ≤ v2, and with help of the designer, one such constraint is selected. • Figure 3(b) is more than a “refinement”, because it corresponds to detecting faults in the initial specification, and proposes a new proper constraint. University of Houston

  28. Key Point: the Increment • SDRTL will compute for each change (new arc and/or new cost) the increment • Then, SDRTL will sort all these increments in an increasing order • Starting from the minimum increment, the designer will be asked for his agreement • The increments which are zero do not count University of Houston

  29. The Execution Run University of Houston

  30. The Execution Run (cont) University of Houston

  31. Railroad Crossing - Constraint Graph (3) • PF3=PF2 {C12, C13, C14, C15}, over V2. • As detV2(PF3)=0, then the real-time system is safe. • The unification should be done carefully. University of Houston

  32. Monotony of det and inc University of Houston

  33. Systematic Debugging Results • Denote by niz the number of increments which are zero, and by tni the total number of increments. • The effectiveness is efct = (tni-niz)/(tni). • The closer effectiveness to 0, the faster algorithm is (because useless clauses are not generated). • The more bugs the system has, the bigger execution time we get. University of Houston

  34. X-38, an autonomous spacecraft build by NASA [RiceCheng99] University of Houston

  35. Automatic Debugging • autonomous systems (human operators are absent) generate automatically real-time control plan on-the-fly University of Houston

  36. Future Work: Replacement of SAT solvers • Counting SAT solvers are more efficient than SAT solvers when there are two many choices to consider (like re-design and debugging problems) • Applications: • Finding a feasible scheduling • Model checking University of Houston

  37. Joint work with Stefan Andrei, Wei-Ngan Chin, and Mihai Lupu of the National University of Singapore. Work supported in part by the NSF and the Institute for Space Systems Operations.Thanks!Questions? University of Houston

  38. References • [JahanianMok87] Jahanian, F., Mok, A.: A Graph-Theoretic Approach for Timing Analysis and its Implementation. IEEE Transactions on Computers. Vol. C-36, No. 8, 1987 • [JaS88] Jahanian, F., Stuart, D. A.: A Method for Verifying Properties of Modechart Specifications. Proceedings of 9-th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, pp. 12-21, 1988 • [WaM94] Wang, F., Mok, A. K.: RTL and Refutation by Positive Cycles. Proceedings of Formal Methods Europe Symposium, 873, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 659-680, 1994 • [AndreiChin04] Andrei, S., Chin, W.-N.: Incremental Satisfiability Counting for Real-Time Systems. IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS’04), Toronto, Canada, 25 May – 28 May, 2004 • S. Andrei, W.-N. Chin, A. M. K. Cheng, and M. Lupu. Automatic Debugging of Real-Time Systems Based on Incremental Satisfiability Counting, accepted 2/2006, to appear in IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2006 University of Houston

  39. References (cont) • [MTR96] Mok, A. K., Tsou, Duu-Chung, de Rooij, R. C. M. The MSP.RTL real-time scheduler synthesis tool. Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, 1996 • [RiceCheng99] Rice, L.E.P., Cheng, A.M.K. Timing Analysis of the X-38 Space Station Crew Return Vehicle Avionics. Proceedings of the 5-th IEEE-CS Real-Time Technology and Applications Symposium, pp. 255-264, 1999 • [Cheng02] Cheng, A.M.K. Real-time systems. Scheduling, Analysis, and Verification. Wiley-Interscience, 2002 • [Andrei2004] Andrei, S. Counting for Satisfiability by Inverting Resolution. Artificial Intelligence Review, 2004 • [SoS94] O. Sokolsky and S.A. Smolka. Incremental Model Checking in the Modal Mu-Calculus, Computer-Aided Verification '94, LNCS 818, Springer-Verlag, 1994 University of Houston

More Related