Applying Formal Methods to Networking: Theory, Techniques and Applications

Despite its great importance, modern network infrastructure is remarkable for the lack of rigor in its engineering. The Internet which began as a research experiment was never designed to handle the users and applications it hosts today. The lack of formalization of the Internet architecture meant limited abstractions and modularity, especially for the control and management planes, thus requiring for every new need a new protocol built from scratch. This led to an unwieldy ossified Internet architecture resistant to any attempts at formal verification, and an Internet culture where expediency and pragmatism are favored over formal correctness. Fortunately, recent work in the space of clean slate Internet design---especially, the software defined networking (SDN) paradigm---offers the Internet community another chance to develop the right kind of architecture and abstractions. This has also led to a great resurgence in interest of applying formal methods to specification, verification, and synthesis of networking protocols and applications. In this paper, we present a self-contained tutorial of the formidable amount of work that has been done in formal methods, and present a survey of its applications to networking.Comment: 30 pages, submitted to IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorial

On the engineering of crucial software

The various aspects of the conventional software development cycle are examined. This cycle was the basis of the augmented approach contained in the original grant proposal. This cycle was found inadequate for crucial software development, and the justification for this opinion is presented. Several possible enhancements to the conventional software cycle are discussed. Software fault tolerance, a possible enhancement of major importance, is discussed separately. Formal verification using mathematical proof is considered. Automatic programming is a radical alternative to the conventional cycle and is discussed. Recommendations for a comprehensive approach are presented, and various experiments which could be conducted in AIRLAB are described

Concurrent Design of Embedded Control Software

Embedded software design for mechatronic systems is becoming an increasingly time-consuming and error-prone task. In order to cope with the heterogeneity and complexity, a systematic model-driven design approach is needed, where several parts of the system can be designed concurrently. There is however a trade-off between concurrency efficiency and integration efficiency. In this paper, we present a case study on the development of the embedded control software for a real-world mechatronic system in order to evaluate how we can integrate concurrent and largely independent designed embedded system software parts in an efficient way. The case study was executed using our embedded control system design methodology which employs a concurrent systematic model-based design approach that ensures a concurrent design process, while it still allows a fast integration phase by using automatic code synthesis. The result was a predictable concurrently designed embedded software realization with a short integration time

A bibliography on formal methods for system specification, design and validation

Literature on the specification, design, verification, testing, and evaluation of avionics systems was surveyed, providing 655 citations. Journal papers, conference papers, and technical reports are included. Manual and computer-based methods were employed. Keywords used in the online search are listed

Synthesizing Robust Systems with RATSY

Specifications for reactive systems often consist of environment assumptions and system guarantees. An implementation should not only be correct, but also robust in the sense that it behaves reasonably even when the assumptions are (temporarily) violated. We present an extension of the requirements analysis and synthesis tool RATSY that is able to synthesize robust systems from GR(1) specifications, i.e., system in which a finite number of safety assumption violations is guaranteed to induce only a finite number of safety guarantee violations. We show how the specification can be turned into a two-pair Streett game, and how a winning strategy corresponding to a correct and robust implementation can be computed. Finally, we provide some experimental results.Comment: In Proceedings SYNT 2012, arXiv:1207.055

RTL2RTL Formal Equivalence: Boosting the Design Confidence

Increasing design complexity driven by feature and performance requirements and the Time to Market (TTM) constraints force a faster design and validation closure. This in turn enforces novel ways of identifying and debugging behavioral inconsistencies early in the design cycle. Addition of incremental features and timing fixes may alter the legacy design behavior and would inadvertently result in undesirable bugs. The most common method of verifying the correctness of the changed design is to run a dynamic regression test suite before and after the intended changes and compare the results, a method which is not exhaustive. Modern Formal Verification (FV) techniques involving new methods of proving Sequential Hardware Equivalence enabled a new set of solutions for the given problem, with complete coverage guarantee. Formal Equivalence can be applied for proving functional integrity after design changes resulting from a wide variety of reasons, ranging from simple pipeline optimizations to complex logic redistributions. We present here our experience of successfully applying the RTL to RTL (RTL2RTL) Formal Verification across a wide spectrum of problems on a Graphics design. The RTL2RTL FV enabled checking the design sanity in a very short time, thus enabling faster and safer design churn. The techniques presented in this paper are applicable to any complex hardware design.Comment: In Proceedings FSFMA 2014, arXiv:1407.195

Using ACL2 to Verify Loop Pipelining in Behavioral Synthesis

Behavioral synthesis involves compiling an Electronic System-Level (ESL) design into its Register-Transfer Level (RTL) implementation. Loop pipelining is one of the most critical and complex transformations employed in behavioral synthesis. Certifying the loop pipelining algorithm is challenging because there is a huge semantic gap between the input sequential design and the output pipelined implementation making it infeasible to verify their equivalence with automated sequential equivalence checking techniques. We discuss our ongoing effort using ACL2 to certify loop pipelining transformation. The completion of the proof is work in progress. However, some of the insights developed so far may already be of value to the ACL2 community. In particular, we discuss the key invariant we formalized, which is very different from that used in most pipeline proofs. We discuss the needs for this invariant, its formalization in ACL2, and our envisioned proof using the invariant. We also discuss some trade-offs, challenges, and insights developed in course of the project.Comment: In Proceedings ACL2 2014, arXiv:1406.123