LIPIcs

Synchronous programs are easy to specify because the side effects of an operation are finished by the time the invocation of the operation returns to the caller. Asynchronous programs, on the other hand, are difficult to specify because there are side effects due to pending computation scheduled as a result of the invocation of an operation. They are also difficult to verify because of the large number of possible interleavings of concurrent computation threads. We present synchronization, a new proof rule that simplifies the verification of asynchronous programs by introducing the fiction, for proof purposes, that asynchronous operations complete synchronously. Synchronization summarizes an asynchronous computation as immediate atomic effect. Modular verification is enabled via pending asynchronous calls in atomic summaries, and a complementary proof rule that eliminates pending asynchronous calls when components and their specifications are composed. We evaluate synchronization in the context of a multi-layer refinement verification methodology on a collection of benchmark programs

IST Austria Thesis

Designing and verifying concurrent programs is a notoriously challenging, time consuming, and error prone task, even for experts. This is due to the sheer number of possible interleavings of a concurrent program, all of which have to be tracked and accounted for in a formal proof. Inventing an inductive invariant that captures all interleavings of a low-level implementation is theoretically possible, but practically intractable. We develop a refinement-based verification framework that provides mechanisms to simplify proof construction by decomposing the verification task into smaller subtasks. In a first line of work, we present a foundation for refinement reasoning over structured concurrent programs. We introduce layered concurrent programs as a compact notation to represent multi-layer refinement proofs. A layered concurrent program specifies a sequence of connected concurrent programs, from most concrete to most abstract, such that common parts of different programs are written exactly once. Each program in this sequence is expressed as structured concurrent program, i.e., a program over (potentially recursive) procedures, imperative control flow, gated atomic actions, structured parallelism, and asynchronous concurrency. This is in contrast to existing refinement-based verifiers, which represent concurrent systems as flat transition relations. We present a powerful refinement proof rule that decomposes refinement checking over structured programs into modular verification conditions. Refinement checking is supported by a new form of modular, parameterized invariants, called yield invariants, and a linear permission system to enhance local reasoning. In a second line of work, we present two new reduction-based program transformations that target asynchronous programs. These transformations reduce the number of interleavings that need to be considered, thus reducing the complexity of invariants. Synchronization simplifies the verification of asynchronous programs by introducing the fiction, for proof purposes, that asynchronous operations complete synchronously. Synchronization summarizes an asynchronous computation as immediate atomic effect. Inductive sequentialization establishes sequential reductions that captures every behavior of the original program up to reordering of coarse-grained commutative actions. A sequential reduction of a concurrent program is easy to reason about since it corresponds to a simple execution of the program in an idealized synchronous environment, where processes act in a fixed order and at the same speed. Our approach is implemented the CIVL verifier, which has been successfully used for the verification of several complex concurrent programs. In our methodology, the overall correctness of a program is established piecemeal by focusing on the invariant required for each refinement step separately. While the programmer does the creative work of specifying the chain of programs and the inductive invariant justifying each link in the chain, the tool automatically constructs the verification conditions underlying each refinement step

IST Austria Technical Report

Synchronous programs are easy to specify because the side effects of an operation are finished by the time the invocation of the operation returns to the caller. Asynchronous programs, on the other hand, are difficult to specify because there are side effects due to pending computation scheduled as a result of the invocation of an operation. They are also difficult to verify because of the large number of possible interleavings of concurrent asynchronous computation threads. We show that specifications and correctness proofs for asynchronous programs can be structured by introducing the fiction, for proof purposes, that intermediate, non-quiescent states of asynchronous operations can be ignored. Then, the task of specification becomes relatively simple and the task of verification can be naturally decomposed into smaller sub-tasks. The sub-tasks iteratively summarize, guided by the structure of an asynchronous program, the atomic effect of non-atomic operations and the synchronous effect of asynchronous operations. This structuring of specifications and proofs corresponds to the introduction of multiple layers of stepwise refinement for asynchronous programs. We present the first proof rule, called synchronization, to reduce asynchronous invocations on a lower layer to synchronous invocations on a higher layer. We implemented our proof method in CIVL and evaluated it on a collection of benchmark programs

Modular and Safe Event-Driven Programming

Asynchronous event-driven systems are ubiquitous across domains such as device drivers, distributed systems, and robotics. These systems are notoriously hard to get right as the programmer needs to reason about numerous control paths resulting from the complex interleaving of events (or messages) and failures. Unsurprisingly, it is easy to introduce subtle errors while attempting to fill in gaps between high-level system specifications and their concrete implementations.This dissertation proposes new methods for programming safe event-driven asynchronous systems.In the first part of the thesis, we present ModP, a modular programming framework for compositional programming and testing of event-driven asynchronous systems.The ModP module system supports a novel theory of compositional refinement for assume-guarantee reasoning of dynamic event-driven asynchronous systems. We build a complex distributed systems software stack using ModP.Our results demonstrate that compositional reasoning can help scale model-checking (both explicit and symbolic) to large distributed systems.ModP is transforming the way asynchronous software is built at Microsoft and Amazon Web Services (AWS). Microsoft uses ModP for implementing safe device drivers and other software in the Windows kernel.AWS uses ModP for compositional model checking of complex distributed systems. While ModP simplifies analysis of such systems, the state space of industrial-scale systems remains extremely large.In the second part of this thesis, we present scalable verification and systematic testing approaches to further mitigate this state-space explosion problem.First, we introduce the concept of a delaying explorer to perform prioritized exploration of the behaviors of an asynchronous reactive program. A delaying explorer stratifies the search space using a custom strategy (tailored towards finding bugs faster), and a delay operation that allows deviation from that strategy. We show that prioritized search with a delaying explorer performs significantly better than existing approaches for finding bugs in asynchronous programs.Next, we consider the challenge of verifying time-synchronized systems; these are almost-synchronous systems as they are neither completely asynchronous nor synchronous.We introduce approximate synchrony, a sound and tunable abstraction for verification of almost-synchronous systems. We show how approximate synchrony can be used for verification of both time-synchronization protocols and applications running on top of them.Moreover, we show how approximate synchrony also provides a useful strategy to guide state-space exploration during model-checking.Using approximate synchrony and implementing it as a delaying explorer, we were able to verify the correctness of the IEEE 1588 distributed time-synchronization protocol and, in the process, uncovered a bug in the protocol that was well appreciated by the standards committee.In the final part of this thesis, we consider the challenge of programming a special class of event-driven asynchronous systems -- safe autonomous robotics systems.Our approach towards achieving assured autonomy for robotics systems consists of two parts: (1) a high-level programming language for implementing and validating the reactive robotics software stack; and (2) an integrated runtime assurance system to ensure that the assumptions used during design-time validation of the high-level software hold at runtime.Combining high-level programming language and model-checking with runtime assurance helps us bridge the gap between design-time software validation that makes assumptions about the untrusted components (e.g., low-level controllers), and the physical world, and the actual execution of the software on a real robotic platform in the physical world. We implemented our approach as DRONA, a programming framework for building safe robotics systems.We used DRONA for building a distributed mobile robotics system and deployed it on real drone platforms. Our results demonstrate that DRONA (with the runtime-assurance capabilities) enables programmers to build an autonomous robotics software stack with formal safety guarantees.To summarize, this thesis contributes new theory and tools to the areas of programming languages, verification, systematic testing, and runtime assurance for programming safe asynchronous event-driven across the domains of fault-tolerant distributed systems and safe autonomous robotics systems

Computer Aided Verification

The open access two-volume set LNCS 11561 and 11562 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV 2019, held in New York City, USA, in July 2019. The 52 full papers presented together with 13 tool papers and 2 case studies, were carefully reviewed and selected from 258 submissions. The papers were organized in the following topical sections: Part I: automata and timed systems; security and hyperproperties; synthesis; model checking; cyber-physical systems and machine learning; probabilistic systems, runtime techniques; dynamical, hybrid, and reactive systems; Part II: logics, decision procedures; and solvers; numerical programs; verification; distributed systems and networks; verification and invariants; and concurrency

Computer Aided Verification

The open access two-volume set LNCS 11561 and 11562 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV 2019, held in New York City, USA, in July 2019. The 52 full papers presented together with 13 tool papers and 2 case studies, were carefully reviewed and selected from 258 submissions. The papers were organized in the following topical sections: Part I: automata and timed systems; security and hyperproperties; synthesis; model checking; cyber-physical systems and machine learning; probabilistic systems, runtime techniques; dynamical, hybrid, and reactive systems; Part II: logics, decision procedures; and solvers; numerical programs; verification; distributed systems and networks; verification and invariants; and concurrency

Master of Science

thesisDirect equivalence testing is a framework for detecting errors in C compilers and application programs that exploits the fact that program semantics should be preserved during the compilation process. Binaries generated from the same piece of code should remain equivalent irrespective of the compiler, or compiler optimizations, used. Compiler errors as well as program errors such as out of bounds memory access, stack over ow, and use of uninitialized local variables cause nonequivalence in the generated binaries. Direct equivalence testing has detected previously unknown errors in real world embedded software like TinyOS and in di fferent compilers like msp430-gcc and llvm-msp430

On the Completeness of Verifying Message Passing Programs under Bounded Asynchrony

We address the problem of verifying message passing programs, defined as a set of parallel processes communicating through unbounded FIFO buffers. We introduce a bounded analysis that explores a special type of computations, called k-synchronous. These computations can be viewed as (unbounded) sequences of interaction phases, each phase allowing at most k send actions (by different processes), followed by a sequence of receives corresponding to sends in the same phase. We give a procedure for deciding k-synchronizability of a program, i.e., whether every computation is equivalent (has the same happens-before relation) to one of its k-synchronous computations. We also show that reachability over k-synchronous computations and checking k-synchronizability are both PSPACE-complete. Furthermore, we introduce a class of programs called {\em flow-bounded} for which the problem of deciding whether there exists a k>0 for which the program is k-synchronizable, is decidable

Computer Aided Verification

This open access two-volume set LNCS 11561 and 11562 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV 2019, held in New York City, USA, in July 2019. The 52 full papers presented together with 13 tool papers and 2 case studies, were carefully reviewed and selected from 258 submissions. The papers were organized in the following topical sections: Part I: automata and timed systems; security and hyperproperties; synthesis; model checking; cyber-physical systems and machine learning; probabilistic systems, runtime techniques; dynamical, hybrid, and reactive systems; Part II: logics, decision procedures; and solvers; numerical programs; verification; distributed systems and networks; verification and invariants; and concurrency