Are IEEE 1500 compliant cores really compliant to the standard?

Functional verification of complex SoC designs is a challenging task, which fortunately is increasingly supported by automation. This article proposes a verification component for IEEE Std 1500, to be plugged into a commercial verification tool suit

IEEE Standard 1500 Compliance Verification for Embedded Cores

Core-based design and reuse are the two key elements for an efficient system-on-chip (SoC) development. Unfortunately, they also introduce new challenges in SoC testing, such as core test reuse and the need of a common test infrastructure working with cores originating from different vendors. The IEEE 1500 Standard for Embedded Core Testing addresses these issues by proposing a flexible hardware test wrapper architecture for embedded cores, together with a core test language (CTL) used to describe the implemented wrapper functionalities. Several intellectual property providers have already announced IEEE Standard 1500 compliance in both existing and future design blocks. In this paper, we address the problem of guaranteeing the compliance of a wrapper architecture and its CTL description to the IEEE Standard 1500. This step is mandatory to fully trust the wrapper functionalities in applying the test sequences to the core. We present a systematic methodology to build a verification framework for IEEE Standard 1500 compliant cores, allowing core providers and/or integrators to verify the compliance of their products (sold or purchased) to the standar

Automating the IEEE std. 1500 compliance verification for embedded cores

The IEEE 1500 standard for embedded core testing proposes a very effective solution for testing modern system-on-chip (SoC). It proposes a flexible hardware test wrapper architecture, together with a core test language (CTL) used to describe the implemented wrapper functionalities. Already several IP providers have announced compliance in both existing and future design blocks. In this paper we address the challenge of guaranteeing the compliance of a wrapper architecture and its CTL description to the IEEE std. 1500. This is a mandatory step to fully trust the wrapper functionalities in applying the test sequences to the core. The proposed solution aims at implementing a verification framework allowing core providers and/or integrators to automatically verify the compliancy of their products (sold or purchased) to the standar

A Case Study on Formal Verification of Self-Adaptive Behaviors in a Decentralized System

Self-adaptation is a promising approach to manage the complexity of modern software systems. A self-adaptive system is able to adapt autonomously to internal dynamics and changing conditions in the environment to achieve particular quality goals. Our particular interest is in decentralized self-adaptive systems, in which central control of adaptation is not an option. One important challenge in self-adaptive systems, in particular those with decentralized control of adaptation, is to provide guarantees about the intended runtime qualities. In this paper, we present a case study in which we use model checking to verify behavioral properties of a decentralized self-adaptive system. Concretely, we contribute with a formalized architecture model of a decentralized traffic monitoring system and prove a number of self-adaptation properties for flexibility and robustness. To model the main processes in the system we use timed automata, and for the specification of the required properties we use timed computation tree logic. We use the Uppaal tool to specify the system and verify the flexibility and robustness properties.Comment: In Proceedings FOCLASA 2012, arXiv:1208.432

Expressing and enforcing user-defined constraints of AADL models

The Architecture Analysis and Design Language AADL allows one to model complete systems, but also to define specific extensions through property sets and library of models. Yet, it does not define an explicit mechanism to enforce some semantics or consistency checks to ensure property sets are correctly used. In this paper, we present REAL (Requirements and Enforcements Analysis Language) as an integrated solution to this issue. REAL is defined as an AADL annex language. It adds the possibility to express constraints as theorems based on set theory to enforce implicit semantics of property sets or AADL models. We illustrate the use of the language on case studies we developed with industrial partners

A Static Verification Framework for Secure Peer-to-Peer Applications

In this paper we present a static verification framework to support the design and verification of secure peer-to-peer applications. The framework supports the specification, modeling, and analysis of security aspects together with the general characteristics of the system, during early stages of the development life-cycle. The approach avoids security issues to be taken into consideration as a separate layer that is added to the system as an afterthought by the use of security protocols. The main functionality supported by the framework are concerned with the modeling of the system together with its security aspects by using an extension of UML, modeling of abuse cases to represent scenarios of attackers and assist with the identification of properties to be verified, specification of properties to be verified in a graphical template language, verification of the models against the properties, and visualization of the results of the verification process

A graph-based aspect interference detection approach for UML-based aspect-oriented models

Aspect Oriented Modeling (AOM) techniques facilitate separate modeling of concerns and allow for a more flexible composition of these than traditional modeling technique. While this improves the understandability of each submodel, in order to reason about the behavior of the composed system and to detect conflicts among submodels, automated tool support is required. Current techniques for conflict detection among aspects generally have at least one of the following weaknesses. They require to manually model the abstract semantics for each system; or they derive the system semantics from code assuming one specific aspect-oriented language. Defining an extra semantics model for verification bears the risk of inconsistencies between the actual and the verified design; verifying only at implementation level hinders fixng errors in earlier phases. We propose a technique for fully automatic detection of conflicts between aspects at the model level; more specifically, our approach works on UML models with an extension for modeling pointcuts and advice. As back-end we use a graph-based model checker, for which we have defined an operational semantics of UML diagrams, pointcuts and advice. In order to simulate the system, we automatically derive a graph model from the diagrams. The result is another graph, which represents all possible program executions, and which can be verified against a declarative specification of invariants.\ud To demonstrate our approach, we discuss a UML-based AOM model of the "Crisis Management System" and a possible design and evolution scenario. The complexity of the system makes con°icts among composed aspects hard to detect: already in the case of two simulated aspects, the state space contains 623 di®erent states and 9 different execution paths. Nevertheless, in case the right pruning methods are used, the state-space only grows linearly with the number of aspects; therefore, the automatic analysis scales

Incommensurability and rationality in engineering design: the case of functional decomposition

In engineering design research different models of functional decomposition are advanced side-by-side. In this paper I explain and validate this co-existence of models in terms of the Kuhnian thesis of methodological incommensurability. I advance this analysis in terms of the thesis’ construal of (non-algorithmic) theory choice in terms of values, expanding this notion to the engineering domain. I further argue that the (by some) implicated threat of the thesis to rational theory choice has no force in the functional decomposition case: co-existence of different models of functional decomposition is rational from an instrumental point of view. My explanation covers cases in which different models are advanced as means for the same objective. Such cases cannot be explicated with the explanatory construct of variety in objectives, as advanced in other analyses of co-existing conceptualizations in engineering