Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Hotae Kim

dblp:95/4849 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Program verification · 62% Software testing · 38%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers
Storage systems · 60% Embedded and real-time systems · 40%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification › model checking
software model checking
0.112011
A Comparative Study of Software Model Checkers as Unit Testing Tools: An Industrial Case Study · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2011
Software testing
unit testing
0.112011
A Comparative Study of Software Model Checkers as Unit Testing Tools: An Industrial Case Study · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2011
Program verification
model checking
0.112008
Unit Testing of Flash Memory Device Driver through a SAT-Based Model Checker · ASE 2008

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

predicate abstraction · 0.2counterexample-guided abstraction refinement · 0.2SAT-based bounded analysis · 0.2bounded model checking · 0.2SAT solving · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2011 A Comparative Study of Software Model Checkers as Unit Testing Tools: An Industrial Case Study
abstract
Conventional testing methods often fail to detect hidden flaws in complex embedded software such as device drivers or file systems. This deficiency incurs significant development and support/maintenance cost for the manufacturers. Model checking techniques have been proposed to compensate for the weaknesses of conventional testing methods through exhaustive analyses. Whereas conventional model checkers require manual effort to create an abstract target model, modern software model checkers remove this overhead by directly analyzing a target C program, and can be utilized as unit testing tools. However, since software model checkers are not fully mature yet, they have limitations according to the underlying technologies and tool implementations, potentially critical issues when applied in industrial projects. This paper reports our experience in applying Blast and CBMC to testing the components of a storage platform software for flash memory. Through this project, we analyzed the strong and weak points of two different software model checking technologies in the viewpoint of real-world industrial application-counterexample-guided abstraction refinement with predicate abstraction and SAT-based bounded analysis.
Moonzoo Kim, Hotae Kim
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.3
2008 Pre-testing Flash Device Driver through Model Checking Techniques
abstract
Flash memory has become virtually indispensable in most mobile devices, such as mobile phones, digital cameras, mp3 players, etc. In order for mobile devices to successfully provide services, it is essential that flash memory be controlled correctly through the device driver software. However, as is typical for embedded software, conventional testing methods often fail to detect hidden flaws in the complex device driver software. This deficiency incurs significant development and operation overhead to the manufacturers. As a complementary approach to improve the reliability of embedded software, model checking provides a complete analysis of a target model but the size of the target software is limited due to the state explosion problem.In this project, we have verified the correctness of a multi-sector read operation of Samsung OneNANDTM flash device driver by using both model checking and testing. We started the verification task with the model checkers NuSMV and Spin for an exhaustive analysis of a small size flash as a pre-testing step. We then set up a testbed based on a formal model used for model checking and performed testing on a large size flash. Through these verification tasks, we could successfully verify the correctness of the multi-sector read operation with both complete exploration of model checking and scalability of testing.
Moonzoo Kim, Yunja Choi, Hotae Kim
ICST4
2008 Unit Testing of Flash Memory Device Driver through a SAT-Based Model Checker
abstract
Flash memory has become virtually indispensable in most mobile devices. In order for mobile devices to operate successfully, it is essential that the flash memory be controlled correctly through the device driver software. However, as is typical for embedded software, conventional testing methods often fail to detect hidden flaws in the complex device driver software. This deficiency incurs significant development and operation overheads to the manufacturers. Model checking techniques have been proposed to compensate for the weaknesses of conventional testing methods through exhaustive analyses. These techniques, however, require significant manual efforts to create an abstract target model and, thus, are not widely applied in industry. In this project, we applied a model checking technique based on a Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solver. One advantage of SAT-based model checking is that a target C code can be analyzed directly without an abstract model, thereby enabling automated and bit-level accurate verification. In this project, we have applied CBMC, a SAT-based software model checker, to the unit testing of the Samsung OneNANDtrade device driver. Through this project, we detected several bugs that had not been discovered previously.
Moonzoo Kim, Hotae Kim
ASE3