Integrated formal verification of safety-critical software

This work presents a formal verification process based on the Systerel Smart Solver (S3) toolset for the development of safety-critical embedded software. In order to guarantee the correctness of the implementation of a set of textual requirements, the process integrates different verification techniques (inductive proof, bounded model checking, test case generation and equivalence proof) to handle different types of properties at their best capacities. It is aimed at the verification of properties at system, design, and code levels. To handle the floating-point arithmetic (FPA) in both the design and the code, an FPA library is designed and implemented in S3. This work is illustrated on an Automatic Rover Protection (ARP) system implemented on-board a robot. Focus is placed on the verification of safety and functional properties and on the equivalence proof between the design model and the generated code

Global Guidance for Local Generalization in Model Checking

SMT-based model checkers, especially IC3-style ones, are currently the most effective techniques for verification of infinite state systems. They infer global inductive invariants via local reasoning about a single step of the transition relation of a system, while employing SMT-based procedures, such as interpolation, to mitigate the limitations of local reasoning and allow for better generalization. Unfortunately, these mitigations intertwine model checking with heuristics of the underlying SMT-solver, negatively affecting stability of model checking. In this paper, we propose to tackle the limitations of locality in a systematic manner. We introduce explicit global guidance into the local reasoning performed by IC3-style algorithms. To this end, we extend the SMT-IC3 paradigm with three novel rules, designed to mitigate fundamental sources of failure that stem from locality. We instantiate these rules for the theory of Linear Integer Arithmetic and implement them on top of Spacer solver in Z3. Our empirical results show that GSpacer, Spacer extended with global guidance, is significantly more effective than both Spacer and sole global reasoning, and, furthermore, is insensitive to interpolation

Global Guidance for Local Generalization in Model Checking

SMT-based model checkers, especially IC3-style ones, are currently the most effective techniques for verification of infinite state systems. They infer global inductive invariants via local reasoning about a single step of the transition relation of a system, while employing SMT-based procedures, such as interpolation, to mitigate the limitations of local reasoning and allow for better generalization. Unfortunately, these mitigations intertwine model checking with heuristics of the underlying SMT-solver, negatively affecting stability of model checking. In this paper, we propose to tackle the limitations of locality in a systematic manner. We introduce explicit global guidance into the local reasoning performed by IC3-style algorithms. To this end, we extend the SMT-IC3 paradigm with three novel rules, designed to mitigate fundamental sources of failure that stem from locality. We instantiate these rules for the theory of Linear Integer Arithmetic and implement them on top of SPACER solver in Z3. Our empirical results show that GSPACER, SPACER extended with global guidance, is significantly more effective than both SPACER and sole global reasoning, and, furthermore, is insensitive to interpolation.Comment: Published in CAV 202

Global guidance for local generalization in model checking

SMT-based model checkers, especially IC3-style ones, are currently the most effective techniques for verification of infinite state systems. They infer global inductive invariants via local reasoning about a single step of the transition relation of a system, while employing SMT-based procedures, such as interpolation, to mitigate the limitations of local reasoning and allow for better generalization. Unfortunately, these mitigations intertwine model checking with heuristics of the underlying SMT-solver, negatively affecting stability of model checking. In this paper, we propose to tackle the limitations of locality in a systematic manner. We introduce explicit global guidance into the local reasoning performed by IC3-style algorithms. To this end, we extend the SMT-IC3 paradigm with three novel rules, designed to mitigate fundamental sources of failure that stem from locality. We instantiate these rules for Linear Integer Arithmetic and Linear Rational Aritmetic and implement them on top of Spacer solver in Z3. Our empirical results show that GSpacer, Spacer extended with global guidance, is significantly more effective than both Spacer and sole global reasoning, and, furthermore, is insensitive to interpolation

Generalized Property-Directed Reachability for Hybrid Systems

Generalized property-directed reachability (GPDR) belongs to the family of the model-checking techniques called IC3/PDR. It has been successfully applied to software verification; for example, it is the core of Spacer, a state-of-the-art Horn-clause solver bundled with Z3. However, it has yet to be applied to hybrid systems, which involve a continuous evolution of values over time. As the first step towards GPDR- based model checking for hybrid systems, this paper formalizes HGPDR, an adaptation of GPDR to hybrid systems, and proves its soundness. We also implemented a semi-automated proof-of-concept verifier, which allows a user to provide hints to guide verification steps.Comment: To appear in VMCAI 202

Advanced Symbolic Analysis Tools for Fault-Tolerant Integrated Distributed Systems

The project aims to develop advanced model-checking algorithms and tools to automate the verification of fault-tolerant distributed systems for avionics. We present a new method called Property-Directed K-Induction (PD-KIND) for synthesizing K-inductive invariants of state-transition systems. PD-KIND builds upon Satifiability Modulo Theories (SMT) to generalize Bradley's IC3 method and its variants. This method is implemented in a new tool called SALLY. Case studies show that PD-KIND can automatically verify fault-tolerant algorithms under a variety of fault models and that SALLY is competitive with other SMT-based model checkers

Counterexample-Guided Prophecy for Model Checking Modulo the Theory of Arrays

We develop a framework for model checking infinite-state systems by automatically augmenting them with auxiliary variables, enabling quantifier-free induction proofs for systems that would otherwise require quantified invariants. We combine this mechanism with a counterexample-guided abstraction refinement scheme for the theory of arrays. Our framework can thus, in many cases, reduce inductive reasoning with quantifiers and arrays to quantifier-free and array-free reasoning. We evaluate the approach on a wide set of benchmarks from the literature. The results show that our implementation often outperforms state-of-the-art tools, demonstrating its practical potential

Witness-based validation of verification results with applications to software-model checking

In the scientific world, formal verification is an established engineering technique to ensure the correctness of hardware and software systems. Because formal verification is an arduous and error-prone endeavor, automated solutions are desirable, and researchers continue to develop new algorithms and optimize existing ones to push the boundaries of what can be verified automatically. These efforts do not go unnoticed by the industry. Hardware-circuit designs, flight-control systems, and operating-system drivers are just a few examples of systems where formal verification is already part of the quality-assurance repertoire. Nevertheless, the primary fields of application for formal verification are mainly those where errors carry a high risk of significant damage, either financial or physical, because the costs of formal verification are considered to be too high for most other projects, despite the fact that the research community has made vast advancements regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of formal verification techniques in the last decades. We present and address two potential reasons for this discrepancy that we identified in the field of automated formal software verification. (1) Even for experts in the field, it is often difficult to decide which of the multitude of available techniques is the most suitable solution they should recommend to solve a given verification problem. Moreover, even if a suitable solution is found for a given system, there is no guarantee that the solution is sustainable as the system evolves. Consequently, the cost of finding and maintaining a suitable approach for applying formal software verification to real-world systems is high. (2) Even assuming that a suitable and maintainable solution for applying formal software verification to a given system is found and verification results could be obtained, developers of the system still require further guidance towards making practical use of these results, which often differ significantly from the results they obtain from classical quality-assurance techniques they are familiar with, such as testing. To mitigate the first issue, using the open-source software-verification framework CPAchecker, we investigate several popular formal software-verification techniques such as predicate abstraction, Impact, bounded model checking, k -induction, and PDR, and perform an extensive and rigorous experimental study to identify their strengths and weaknesses regarding their comparative effectiveness and efficiency when applied to a large and established benchmark set, to provide a basis for choosing the best technique for a given problem. To mitigate the second issue, we propose a concrete standard format for the representation and communication of verification results that raises the bar from plain "yes" or "no" answers to verification witnesses, which are valuable artifacts of the verification process that contain detailed information discovered during the analysis. We then use these verification witnesses for several applications: To increase the trust in verification results, we irst develop several independent validators based on violation witnesses, i.e. verification witnesses that represent bugs detected by a verifier. We then extend our validators to also erify the verification results obtained from a successful verification, which are represented y correctness witnesses. Lastly, we also develop an interactive web service to store and retrieve these verification witnesses, to provide online validation to quickly de-prioritize likely wrong results, and to graphically visualize the witnesses, as an example of how verification can be integrated into a development process. Since the introduction of our proposed standard format for verification witnesses, it has been adopted by over thirty different software verifiers, and our witness-based result-validation tools have become a core component in the scoring process of the International Competition on Software Verification.In der Welt der Wissenschaft gilt die Formale Verifikation als etablierte Methode, die Korrektheit von Hard- und Software zu gewährleisten. Da die Anwendung formaler Verifikation jedoch selbst ein beschwerliches und fehlerträchtiges Unterfangen darstellt, ist es erstrebenswert, automatisierte Lösungen dafür zu finden. Forscher entwickeln daher immer wieder neue Algorithmen Formaler Verifikation oder verbessern bereits existierende Algorithmen, um die Grenzen der Automatisierbarkeit Formaler Verifikation weiter und weiter zu dehnen. Auch die Industrie ist bereits auf diese Anstrengungen aufmerksam geworden. Flugsteuerungssysteme, Betriebssystemtreiber und Entwürfe von Hardware-Schaltungen sind nur einzelne Beispiele von Systemen, bei denen Formale Verifikation bereits heute einen festen Stammplatz im Arsenal der Qualitätssicherungsmaßnahmen eingenommen hat. Trotz alledem bleiben die primären Einsatzgebiete Formaler Verifikation jene, in denen Fehler ein hohes Risiko finanzieller oder physischer Schäden bergen, da in anderen Projekten die Kosten des Einsatzes Formaler Verifikation in der Regel als zu hoch empfunden werden, unbeachtet der Tatsache, dass es der Forschungsgemeinschaft in den letzten Jahrzehnten gelungen ist, enorme Fortschritte bei der Verbesserung der Effektivität und Effizienz Formaler Verifikationstechniken zu machen. Wir präsentieren und diskutieren zwei potenzielle Ursachen für diese Diskrepanz zwischen Forschung und Industrie, die wir auf dem Gebiet der Automatisierten Formalen Softwareverifikation identifiziert haben. (1) Sogar Fachleuten fällt es oft schwer, zu entscheiden, welche der zahlreichen verfügbaren Methoden sie als vielversprechendste Lösung eines gegebenen Verifikationsproblems empfehlen sollten. Darüber hinaus gibt es selbst dann, wenn eine passende Lösung für ein gegebenes System gefunden wird, keine Garantie, dass sich diese Lösung im Laufe der Evolution des Systems als Nachhaltig erweisen wird. Daher sind sowohl die Wahl als auch der Unterhalt eines passenden Ansatzes zur Anwendung Formaler Softwareverifikation auf reale Systeme kostspielige Unterfangen. (2) Selbst unter der Annahme, dass eine passende und wartbare Lösung zur Anwendung Formaler Softwareverifikation auf ein gegebenes System gefunden und Verifikationsergebnisse erzielt werden, benötigen die Entwickler des Systems immer noch weitere Unterstützung, um einen praktischen Nutzen aus den Ergebnissen ziehen zu können, die sich oft maßgeblich unterscheiden von den Ergebnissen jener klassischen Qualitätssicherungssysteme, mit denen sie vertraut sind, wie beispielsweise dem Testen. Um das erste Problem zu entschärfen, untersuchen wir unter Verwendung des Open-Source-Softwareverifikationsystems CPAchecker mehrere beliebte Formale Softwareverifikationsmethoden, wie beispielsweise Prädikatenabstraktion, Impact, Bounded-Model-Checking, k-Induktion und PDR, und führen umfangreiche und gründliche experimentelle Studien auf einem großen und etablierten Konvolut an Beispielprogrammen durch, um die Stärken und Schwächen dieser Methoden hinsichtlich ihrer relativen Effektivität und Effizienz zu ermitteln und daraus eine Entscheidungsgrundlage für die Wahl der besten Lösung für ein gegebenes Problem abzuleiten. Um das zweite Problem zu entschärfen, schlagen wir ein konkretes Standardformat zur Modellierung und zum Austausch von Verifikationsergebnissen vor, welches die Ansprüche an Verifikationsergebnisse anhebt, weg von einfachen "ja/nein"-Antworten und hin zu Verifikationszeugen (Verification Witnesses), bei denen es sich um wertvolle Produkte des Verifikationsprozesses handelt und die detaillierte, während der Analyse entdeckte Informationen enthalten. Wir stellen mehrere Anwendungsbeispiele für diese Verifikationszeugen vor: Um das Vertrauen in Verifikationsergebnisse zu erhöhen, entwickeln wir zunächst mehrere, voneinander unabhängige Validatoren, die Verletzungszeugen (Violation Witnesses) verwenden, also Verifikationszeugen, welche von einem Verifikationswerkzeug gefundene Spezifikationsverletzungen darstellen, Diese Validatoren erweitern wir anschließend so, dass sie auch in der Lage sind, die Verifikationsergebnisse erfolgreicher Verifikationen, also Korrektheitsbehauptungen, die durch Korrektheitszeugen (Correctness Witnesses) dokumentiert werden, nachzuvollziehen. Schlussendlich entwickeln wir als Beispiel für die Integrierbarkeit Formaler Verifikation in den Entwicklungsprozess einen interaktiven Webservice für die Speicherung und den Abruf von Verifikationzeugen, um einen Online-Validierungsdienst zur schnellen Depriorisierung mutmaßlich falscher Verifikationsergebnisse anzubieten und Verifikationszeugen graphisch darzustellen. Unser Vorschlag für ein Standardformat für Verifikationszeugen wurde inzwischen von mehr als dreißig verschiedenen Softwareverifikationswerkzeugen übernommen und unsere zeugen-basierten Validierungswerkzeuge sind zu einer Kernkomponente des Bewertungsschemas des Internationalen Softwareverifikationswettbewerbs geworden