Abstract Many digital systems are designed as collections of asynchronous processes orchestrated by a domain-specific scheduler. The verification of such scheduler-restricted asynchronous systems (SRA) is challenging due to process-process and process-scheduler interactions. In this paper, we tackle the problem of verifying configurable SRA. A configurable SRA describes an unbounded family of possible SRA, each resulting from an instantiation satisfying given configuration constraints; our goal is proving at once that every legal instantiation of a configurable SRA is correct. We propose a contract-based, deductive verification approach that combines (i) compositional proof rules that abstract the scheduler to prove top-level invariant properties, (ii) automatic summarizations of the methods invoked by the scheduler, (iii) simplification with respect to the nature of the space of configurations. The approach is grounded in (object-oriented) first order logic, requires reasoning over quantified statements, and leverages the Dafny software verifier as a backend. An experimental evaluation on industrial case studies demonstrates that the framework scales effectively and enables practical reasoning about complex parameterized behaviors.

Abstract In deductive verification and software model checking, dealing with certain specification language constructs can be problematic when the back-end solver is not sufficiently powerful or lacks the required theories. One way to deal with this is to transform, for verification purposes, the program to an equivalent one not using the problematic constructs, and to reason about this equivalent program instead. In this article, we propose program instrumentation as a unifying verification paradigm that subsumes various existing ad-hoc approaches, has a clear formal correctness criterion, can be applied automatically, and can transfer back witnesses and counterexamples. We illustrate our approach on the automated verification of programs that involve quantification and aggregation operations over arrays, such as the maximum value or sum of the elements in a given segment of the array, which are known to be difficult to reason about automatically. We implement our approach in the MonoCera tool, which is tailored to the verification of programs with aggregation, and evaluate it on example programs, including SV-COMP programs.

Abstract In this paper we describe an industrial experience in the verification of the logic of a Railway Protection System (RPS). The RPS is designed within AIDA, a structured model-based design workflow and toolset. The RPS is written in a domain specific language amenable to signaling engineers, that is converted into Extended Finite State Machines (EFSM), and then into executable code. The RPS is parameterized, i.e., it can be applied, after configuration, in different operational scenarios. The logic is divided in classes, that are instantiated depending on the specific application. The verification challenge is to ensure that the required properties hold for all possible instantiations . We follow a verification approach based on the use of deductive methods, leveraging the Dafny framework. The AIDA environment is used to translate the RPS logic into Dafny, and also to automatically generate the contracts summarizing the methods implementing the guards and effects of the EFSM transitions. This approach greatly limits the need for human interaction with the underlying Dafny proof engine. In addition to domain specific optimizations, it results in an automated and efficient proof of the RPS properties.

In this paper, we report on our experience with formally specifying and verifying an industrial software module, provided to us by a company from the heavy-vehicle industry. We start with a set of 32 informally stated requirements, also provided by the company. We discuss at length the formalization process of informally stated requirements for the purposes of their subsequent formal verification. Depending on the nature of each requirement, one of three languages was used: ACSL contracts, LTL or MITL. We use the Frama-C deductive verification framework to verify the source code of the module against the formalized requirements, with the outcome that 21 requirements are successfully verified while 6 are not. The remaining 5 requirements could not be verified for the module itself, as they specify behavior outside it. We illustrate what steps we took to convert LTL and MITL formulas into ACSL contracts to enable their verification in Frama-C. Finally, we discuss conclusions we drew from our work, notably that formal-verification-driven development of modules and verified breakdown of system requirements could likely remedy some problems we encountered.

Abstract In deductive verification and software model checking, dealing with certain specification language constructs can be problematic when the back-end solver is not sufficiently powerful or lacks the required theories. One way to deal with this is to transform, for verification purposes, the program to an equivalent one not using the problematic constructs, and to reason about its correctness instead. In this paper, we propose instrumentation as a unifying verification paradigm that subsumes various existing ad-hoc approaches, has a clear formal correctness criterion, can be applied automatically, and can transfer back witnesses and counterexamples. We illustrate our approach on the automated verification of programs that involve quantification and aggregation operations over arrays, such as the maximum value or sum of the elements in a given segment of the array, which are known to be difficult to reason about automatically. We implement our approach in the MonoCera tool, which is tailored to the verification of programs with aggregation, and evaluate it on example programs, including SV-COMP programs.

Abstract When developing complex software and systems, contracts provide a means for controlling the complexity by dividing the responsibilities among the components of the system in a hierarchical fashion. In specific application areas, dedicated contract theories formalise the notion of contract and the operations on contracts in a manner that supports best the development of systems in that area. At the other end, contract meta-theories attempt to provide a systematic view on the various contract theories by axiomatising their desired properties. However, there exists a noticeable gap between the most well-known contract meta-theory of Benveniste et al. [5], which focuses on the design of embedded and cyber-physical systems, and the established way of using contracts when developing general software, following Meyer’s design-by-contract methodology [18]. At the core of this gap appears to be the notion of procedure: while it is a central unit of composition in software development, the meta-theory does not suggest an obvious way of treating procedures as components. In this paper, we provide a first step towards a contract theory that takes procedures as the basic building block, and is at the same time an instantiation of the meta-theory. To this end, we propose an abstract contract theory for sequential programming languages with procedures, based on denotational semantics. We show that, on the one hand, the specification of contracts of procedures in Hoare logic, and their procedure-modular verification, can be cast naturally in the framework of our abstract contract theory. On the other hand, we also show our contract theory to fulfil the axioms of the meta-theory. In this way, we give further evidence for the utility of the meta-theory, and prepare the ground for combining our instantiation with other, already existing instantiations.