7,309 research outputs found

    Compositional reasoning for shared-variable concurrent programs

    Get PDF
    Scalable and automatic formal verification for concurrent systems is always demanding. In this paper, we propose a verification framework to support automated compositional reasoning for concurrent programs with shared variables. Our framework models concurrent programs as succinct automata and supports the verification of multiple important properties. Safety verification and simulations of succinct automata are parallel compositional, and safety properties of succinct automata are preserved under refinements. We generate succinct automata from infinite state concurrent programs in an automated manner. Furthermore, we propose the first automated approach to checking rely-guarantee based simulations between infinite state concurrent programs. We have prototyped our algorithms and applied our tool to the verification of multiple refinements

    Adequacy of compositional translations for observational semantics

    Get PDF
    We investigate methods and tools for analysing translations between programming languages with respect to observational semantics. The behaviour of programs is observed in terms of may- and must-convergence in arbitrary contexts, and adequacy of translations, i.e., the reflection of program equivalence, is taken to be the fundamental correctness condition. For compositional translations we propose a notion of convergence equivalence as a means for proving adequacy. This technique avoids explicit reasoning about contexts, and is able to deal with the subtle role of typing in implementations of language extension

    Probabilistic Rely-guarantee Calculus

    Full text link
    Jones' rely-guarantee calculus for shared variable concurrency is extended to include probabilistic behaviours. We use an algebraic approach which combines and adapts probabilistic Kleene algebras with concurrent Kleene algebra. Soundness of the algebra is shown relative to a general probabilistic event structure semantics. The main contribution of this paper is a collection of rely-guarantee rules built on top of that semantics. In particular, we show how to obtain bounds on probabilities by deriving rely-guarantee rules within the true-concurrent denotational semantics. The use of these rules is illustrated by a detailed verification of a simple probabilistic concurrent program: a faulty Eratosthenes sieve.Comment: Preprint submitted to TCS-QAP

    Simplifying proofs of linearisability using layers of abstraction

    Get PDF
    Linearisability has become the standard correctness criterion for concurrent data structures, ensuring that every history of invocations and responses of concurrent operations has a matching sequential history. Existing proofs of linearisability require one to identify so-called linearisation points within the operations under consideration, which are atomic statements whose execution causes the effect of an operation to be felt. However, identification of linearisation points is a non-trivial task, requiring a high degree of expertise. For sophisticated algorithms such as Heller et al's lazy set, it even is possible for an operation to be linearised by the concurrent execution of a statement outside the operation being verified. This paper proposes an alternative method for verifying linearisability that does not require identification of linearisation points. Instead, using an interval-based logic, we show that every behaviour of each concrete operation over any interval is a possible behaviour of a corresponding abstraction that executes with coarse-grained atomicity. This approach is applied to Heller et al's lazy set to show that verification of linearisability is possible without having to consider linearisation points within the program code

    Putting time into proof outlines

    Get PDF
    A logic for reasoning about timing of concurrent programs is presented. The logic is based on proof outlines and can handle maximal parallelism as well as resource-constrained execution environments. The correctness proof for a mutual exclusion protocol that uses execution timings in a subtle way illustrates the logic in action
    corecore