Incremental bounded model checking for embedded software

Program analysis is on the brink of mainstream usage in embedded systems development. Formal verification of behavioural requirements, finding runtime errors and test case generation are some of the most common applications of automated verification tools based on bounded model checking (BMC). Existing industrial tools for embedded software use an off-the-shelf bounded model checker and apply it iteratively to verify the program with an increasing number of unwindings. This approach unnecessarily wastes time repeating work that has already been done and fails to exploit the power of incremental SAT solving. This article reports on the extension of the software model checker CBMC to support incremental BMC and its successful integration with the industrial embedded software verification tool BTC EMBEDDED TESTER. We present an extensive evaluation over large industrial embedded programs, mainly from the automotive industry. We show that incremental BMC cuts runtimes by one order of magnitude in comparison to the standard non-incremental approach, enabling the application of formal verification to large and complex embedded software. We furthermore report promising results on analysing programs with arbitrary loop structure using incremental BMC, demonstrating its applicability and potential to verify general software beyond the embedded domain

Synthesizing Short-Circuiting Validation of Data Structure Invariants

This paper presents incremental verification-validation, a novel approach for checking rich data structure invariants expressed as separation logic assertions. Incremental verification-validation combines static verification of separation properties with efficient, short-circuiting dynamic validation of arbitrarily rich data constraints. A data structure invariant checker is an inductive predicate in separation logic with an executable interpretation; a short-circuiting checker is an invariant checker that stops checking whenever it detects at run time that an assertion for some sub-structure has been fully proven statically. At a high level, our approach does two things: it statically proves the separation properties of data structure invariants using a static shape analysis in a standard way but then leverages this proof in a novel manner to synthesize short-circuiting dynamic validation of the data properties. As a consequence, we enable dynamic validation to make up for imprecision in sound static analysis while simultaneously leveraging the static verification to make the remaining dynamic validation efficient. We show empirically that short-circuiting can yield asymptotic improvements in dynamic validation, with low overhead over no validation, even in cases where static verification is incomplete

The JKind Model Checker

JKind is an open-source industrial model checker developed by Rockwell Collins and the University of Minnesota. JKind uses multiple parallel engines to prove or falsify safety properties of infinite state models. It is portable, easy to install, performance competitive with other state-of-the-art model checkers, and has features designed to improve the results presented to users: inductive validity cores for proofs and counterexample smoothing for test-case generation. It serves as the back-end for various industrial applications.Comment: CAV 201

Strengthening Model Checking Techniques with Inductive Invariants

This paper describes optimized techniques to efficiently compute and reap benefits from inductive invariants within SAT-based model checking. We address sequential circuit verification, and we consider both equivalences and implications between pairs of nodes in the logic networks. First, we present a very efficient dynamic procedure, based on equivalence classes and incremental SAT, specifically oriented to reduce the set of checked invariants. Then, we show how to effectively integrate the computation of inductive invariants within state-of-the-art SAT-based model checking procedures. Experiments (on more than 600 designs) show the robustness of our approach on verification instances on which stand-alone techniques fai