1 / 23

Towards a Compositional SPIN

Towards a Compositional SPIN. Corina Păsăreanu QSS, NASA Ames Research Center Dimitra Giannakopoulou RIACS/USRA, NASA Ames Research Center. C 1. C 1. C 2. M 2. C 2. M 1. models. Cost of detecting/fixing defects increases. Integration issues handled early. Project Overview.

gaye
Download Presentation

Towards a Compositional SPIN

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. Towards a Compositional SPIN Corina Păsăreanu QSS, NASA Ames Research Center Dimitra Giannakopoulou RIACS/USRA, NASA Ames Research Center

  2. C1 C1 C2 M2 C2 M1 models Cost of detecting/fixing defects increases Integration issues handled early Project Overview Main objective: • An integrated environment that supports software development and verification/validation throughout the lifecycle; detectintegration problems early, prior to coding Approach: • Compositional (“divide and conquer”) verification, for increased scalability, at design level • Use design level artifacts to improve/aid coding, testing and fault containment Compositional Verification Requirements Design Coding Testing Deployment implementations

  3. Towards a Compositional SPIN • Learning based compositional analysis for increased scalability [TACAS’03] – LTSA tool • Contributions • Generic tool architecture for learning based assume guarantee reasoning • Handles multiple components • Uses SPIN to answer model checking questions • Other tools can be used (e.g. Java PathFinder) • Heuristic for automated generation of interface specifications • Application to realistic resource arbiter for a spacecraft • Significant memory gains over “traditional” non-compositional model checking

  4. Outline • Introduction • Background: assume-guarantee reasoning and learning • Tool architecture • Implementation • Using SPIN for answering learning questions • Promela subset • Case study: MER Arbiter model • Description, results, discussion • Conclusions and future work

  5. satisfies P? Compositional Verification Does system made up of M1 and M2 satisfy property P? M1 • Check P on entire system: too many states! • Use the natural decomposition of the system into its components to break-up the verification task • Check components in isolation: Does M1 satisfy P? • Typically a component is designed to satisfy its requirements in specific contexts / environments • Assume-guarantee reasoning: introduces assumption A representing M1’s “context” A M2

  6. satisfies P? • A M1 P • true M2 A • true M1 || M2 P “discharge” the assumption Assume-Guarantee Rules • Reason about triples: A M P The formula is true if whenever M is part of a system that satisfies A, then the system must also guarantee P M1 • Simplest assume-guarantee rule • We can also handle symmetric rules A M2 How do we come up with the assumption? (usually a difficult manual process)

  7. Approaches • Infer assumptions automatically • Two solutions developed • Algorithmic generation of assumption (controller); knowledge of environment is notrequired [ASE’02] • Incremental assumption computation based on counterexamples, learning and knowledge of environment [TACAS’03, SAVCBS’03 (symmetric rules)]

  8. Formalisms • Components modeled as finite state machines (FSM) • FSMs assembled with parallel composition operator “||” • Synchronizes shared actions, interleaves remaining actions • A property P is a FSM • P describes all legal behaviors • Perr– determinize & complete P; bad behaviors lead to “error” • Component M satisfies P iff error state unreachable in (M || Perr) • Assume-guarantee reasoning • Assumptions and guarantees are FSMs • A M P holds iff error state unreachable in (A || M || Perr) • The alphabet of A, A, contains all environment actions that appear in P

  9. Example Input Ordererr in send in ack || out out in Output send out ack

  10. Computing the Weakest Assumption • Given component M, property P, and the interface of M with its environment, generate the weakest environment assumption A such that: assuming A, M╞ P • Weakest means that for all environments E: (E || M╞P) IFFE╞A

  11. A M1 P • true M2 A • true M1 || M2 P Learning for Assume-guarantee Reasoning • Use an off-the-shelf learning algorithm to build appropriate assumption for the rule • Process is iterative • Assumptions are generated by querying the system, and are gradually refined • Queries are answered by model checking • Refinement is based on counterexamples obtained by model checking • Termination is guaranteed • Extended with symmetric rules

  12. Unknown regular language U Learning with L* • L* algorithm by Angluin, improved by Rivest & Schapire • Learns an unknown regular language U (over alphabet) and produces a DFA A such that L(A) = U • Uses a teacher to answer two types of questions true L* query: string s is s in U? false remove string t false • conjecture:Ai true output DFA A such that L(A) = U is L(Ai)=U? false add string t

  13. s M1 P Ai M1 P true M2 Ai true error? Learning Assumptions • A M1 P • true M2 A • true M1 || M2 P • Use L* to generate candidate assumptions • A = (M1P) M2 true Model Checking L* query: string s false remove counterex. false • conjecture:Ai true true P holds in M1 || M2 false yes P violated add counterex. no

  14. Characteristics • Terminates with minimal automaton A for U • Generates DFA candidates Ai: |A1| < | A2| < … < |A| • Produces at most n candidates, where n = |A| • # queries:(kn2 + n logm), • m is size of largest counterexample, k is size of alphabet • For n components (M1 || M2 || … || Mn) apply algorithm recursively: • Ai M1 P as before • true M2 || … || MnAi invokes the framework

  15. true s M1 P query: string s false Learning Interface Specifications • Compute an assumption (as weak as possible) for a component M1 to guarantee some property P, when environment is not available • A = P L* counterexample false • conjecture:Ai Ai M1 P true true return Ai true P Ai counterexample not accurate with respect to !P || !M1

  16. Implementation in SPIN • Stand-alone application • Invokes SPIN for queries and conjectures • Handles only a Promela subset • Components are processes • Communication through rendezvous channels • Safety properties • SPIN trace assertions • Checking assume-guarantee triples • Encode assumptions into environment processes that run in parallel with components

  17. Case Study • Model derived from MER Resource Arbiter • Local management of resource contention between resource consumers (e.g. science instruments, communication systems) • Avoid simultaneous conflicts (e.g. driving while capturing a camera image are mutually incompatible) • Enforce orderly activity in accordance with predefined priorities encoded in a lookup table • 5 resources • Comm, Drive, PanCam, Arm, Rat • 5 User threads • Non-deterministically decide to use any of the 5 resources • ~3000 LOC • Checked several safety properties

  18. U5 ARB Request, Cancel Grant, Deny Rescind U4 U3 U2 U1 Arbiter Architecture Property P • Mutual exclusion between resources • Comm and Drive can not be used at the same time

  19. U1 P A1 A2 A1 U3 A2 A3 A4 A3 U2 U4 U5 A5 A4 ARB A5 Incremental Property Checking • Compute A1 … A5 s.t. A1 U1 P A2 U2 A1 A3 U3 A2 A4 U4 A3 A5 U5 A4 true ARB A5 • Result P holds on U1 || .. || U5 || ARB • Two techniques • Recursive invocation • Interface specification • Comparison with non-compositional analysis

  20. Analysis Results Results do not reflect the cost of generating the assumptions

  21. Cost of Assumption Generation LTSA tool

  22. Discussion • Significant memory savings • Serious time overhead • Experimented with SPIN’s feature for separate compilation • Encode assumptions as never claims • Restrict search of the verifier • New encoding for queries • Significant improvement • Cost of interface generation reduced from 818.213s to 185.185s

  23. Conclusion and Future Work • Tool architecture for compositional verification • Uses L* for automatic derivation of assumptions • Automated derivation of interface specification • “Loose” integration with SPIN • Model checking for queries and conjectures • Application to Arbiter case study • Significant memory gains • Serious time overhead ; techniques to address this issue • Future work • Tighter integration with SPIN • Parallel checks for queries • Investigate buffered message passing communication • Liveness (learning for infinitary regular sets) • Distinguish between read and write operations

More Related