Ranjit Jhala

Bio: Ranjit Jhala is an academic researcher from University of California, San Diego. The author has contributed to research in topics: Model checking & Predicate abstraction. The author has an hindex of 48, co-authored 134 publications receiving 10102 citations. Previous affiliations of Ranjit Jhala include University of California, Berkeley & University of California.

Lazy abstraction

Abstract: One approach to model checking software is based on the abstract-check-refine paradigm: build an abstract model, then check the desired property, and if the check fails, refine the model and start over. We introduce the concept of lazy abstraction to integrate and optimize the three phases of the abstract-check-refine loop. Lazy abstraction continuously builds and refines a single abstract model on demand, driven by the model checker, so that different parts of the model may exhibit different degrees of precision, namely just enough to verify the desired property. We present an algorithm for model checking safety properties using lazy abstraction and describe an implementation of the algorithm applied to C programs. We also provide sufficient conditions for the termination of the method.

NV-Heaps: making persistent objects fast and safe with next-generation, non-volatile memories

Abstract: Persistent, user-defined objects present an attractive abstraction for working with non-volatile program state. However, the slow speed of persistent storage (i.e., disk) has restricted their design and limited their performance. Fast, byte-addressable, non-volatile technologies, such as phase change memory, will remove this constraint and allow programmers to build high-performance, persistent data structures in non-volatile storage that is almost as fast as DRAM. Creating these data structures requires a system that is lightweight enough to expose the performance of the underlying memories but also ensures safety in the presence of application and system failures by avoiding familiar bugs such as dangling pointers, multiple free()s, and locking errors. In addition, the system must prevent new types of hard-to-find pointer safety bugs that only arise with persistent objects. These bugs are especially dangerous since any corruption they cause will be permanent.We have implemented a lightweight, high-performance persistent object system called NV-heaps that provides transactional semantics while preventing these errors and providing a model for persistence that is easy to use and reason about. We implement search trees, hash tables, sparse graphs, and arrays using NV-heaps, BerkeleyDB, and Stasis. Our results show that NV-heap performance scales with thread count and that data structures implemented using NV-heaps out-perform BerkeleyDB and Stasis implementations by 32x and 244x, respectively, by avoiding the operating system and minimizing other software overheads. We also quantify the cost of enforcing the safety guarantees that NV-heaps provide and measure the costs of NV-heap primitive operations.

The software model checker B last : Applications to software engineering

Abstract: Blast is an automatic verification tool for checking temporal safety properties of C programs. Given a C program and a temporal safety property, Blast either statically proves that the program satisfies the safety property, or provides an execution path that exhibits a violation of the property (or, since the problem is undecidable, does not terminate). Blast constructs, explores, and refines abstractions of the program state space based on lazy predicate abstraction and interpolation-based predicate discovery. This paper gives an introduction to Blast and demonstrates, through two case studies, how it can be applied to program verification and test-case generation. In the first case study, we use Blast to statically prove memory safety for C programs. We use CCured, a type-based memory-safety analyzer, to annotate a program with run-time assertions that check for safe memory operations. Then, we use Blast to remove as many of the run-time checks as possible (by proving that these checks never fail), and to generate execution scenarios that violate the assertions for the remaining run-time checks. In our second case study, we use Blast to automatically generate test suites that guarantee full coverage with respect to a given predicate. Given a C program and a target predicate p, Blast determines the program locations q for which there exists a program execution that reaches q with p true, and automatically generates a set of test vectors that cause such executions. Our experiments show that Blast can provide automated, precise, and scalable analysis for C programs.

Abstractions from proofs

Abstract: The success of model checking for large programs depends crucially on the ability to efficiently construct parsimonious abstractions. A predicate abstraction is parsimonious if at each control location, it specifies only relationships between current values of variables, and only those which are required for proving correctness. Previous methods for automatically refining predicate abstractions until sufficient precision is obtained do not systematically construct parsimonious abstractions: predicates usually contain symbolic variables, and are added heuristically and often uniformly to many or all control locations at once. We use Craig interpolation to efficiently construct, from a given abstract error trace which cannot be concretized, a parsominous abstraction that removes the trace. At each location of the trace, we infer the relevant predicates as an interpolant between the two formulas that define the past and the future segment of the trace. Each interpolant is a relationship between current values of program variables, and is relevant only at that particular program location. It can be found by a linear scan of the proof of infeasibility of the trace.We develop our method for programs with arithmetic and pointer expressions, and call-by-value function calls. For function calls, Craig interpolation offers a systematic way of generating relevant predicates that contain only the local variables of the function and the values of the formal parameters when the function was called. We have extended our model checker Blast with predicate discovery by Craig interpolation, and applied it successfully to C programs with more than 130,000 lines of code, which was not possible with approaches that build less parsimonious abstractions.

Software verification with BLAST

Abstract: Blast (the Berkeley Lazy Abstraction Software verification Tool) is a verification system for checking safety properties of C programs using automatic property-driven construction and model checking of software abstractions. Blast implements an abstract-model check-refine loop to check for reachability of a specified label in the program. The abstract model is built on the fly using predicate abstraction. This model is then checked for reachability. If there is no (abstract) path to the specified error label, Blast reports that the system is safe and produces a succinct proof. Otherwise, it checks if the path is feasible using symbolic execution of the program. If the path is feasible, Blast outputs the path as an error trace, otherwise, it uses the infeasibility of the path to refine the abstract model. Blast short-circuits the loop from abstraction to verification to refinement, integrating the three steps tightly through “lazy abstraction” [5]. This integration can offer significant advantages in performance by avoiding the repetition of work from one iteration of the loop to the next.

DART: directed automated random testing

Abstract: We present a new tool, named DART, for automatically testing software that combines three main techniques: (1) automated extraction of the interface of a program with its external environment using static source-code parsing; (2) automatic generation of a test driver for this interface that performs random testing to simulate the most general environment the program can operate in; and (3) dynamic analysis of how the program behaves under random testing and automatic generation of new test inputs to direct systematically the execution along alternative program paths. Together, these three techniques constitute Directed Automated Random Testing, or DART for short. The main strength of DART is thus that testing can be performed completely automatically on any program that compiles -- there is no need to write any test driver or harness code. During testing, DART detects standard errors such as program crashes, assertion violations, and non-termination. Preliminary experiments to unit test several examples of C programs are very encouraging.

CUTE: a concolic unit testing engine for C

Abstract: In unit testing, a program is decomposed into units which are collections of functions. A part of unit can be tested by generating inputs for a single entry function. The entry function may contain pointer arguments, in which case the inputs to the unit are memory graphs. The paper addresses the problem of automating unit testing with memory graphs as inputs. The approach used builds on previous work combining symbolic and concrete execution, and more specifically, using such a combination to generate test inputs to explore all feasible execution paths. The current work develops a method to represent and track constraints that capture the behavior of a symbolic execution of a unit with memory graphs as inputs. Moreover, an efficient constraint solver is proposed to facilitate incremental generation of such test inputs. Finally, CUTE, a tool implementing the method is described together with the results of applying CUTE to real-world examples of C code.

Test Driven Development: By Example

Abstract: From the Book: “Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons: Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). In Test-Driven Development, you: Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication. Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming: 1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first 2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process 3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra. Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications: If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage. Courage Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects: Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and: Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet. The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test. Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately. That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress. There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code. Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to: Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time This book is organized into three sections. An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples. I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference. Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read. A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Proc. TACAS 2009

Abstract: ing WS1S Systems to Verify Parameterized Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Kai Baukus, Saddek Bensalem, Yassine Lakhnech and Karsten Stahl FMona: A Tool for Expressing Validation Techniques over Infinite State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 J.-P. Bodeveix and M. Filali Transitive Closures of Regular Relations for Verifying Infinite-State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Bengt Jonsson and Marcus Nilsson Diagnostic and Test Generation Using Static Analysis to Improve Automatic Test Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Marius Bozga, Jean-Claude Fernandez and Lucian Ghirvu Efficient Diagnostic Generation for Boolean Equation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Radu Mateescu Efficient Model-Checking Compositional State Space Generation with Partial Order Reductions for Asynchronous Communicating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Jean-Pierre Krimm and Laurent Mounier Checking for CFFD-Preorder with Tester Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Juhana Helovuo and Antti Valmari Fair Bisimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Thomas A. Henzinger and Sriram K. Rajamani Integrating Low Level Symmetries into Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Karsten Schmidt Model-Checking Tools Model Checking Support for the ASM High-Level Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Giuseppe Del Castillo and Kirsten Winter Table of

seL4: formal verification of an OS kernel

Abstract: Complete formal verification is the only known way to guarantee that a system is free of programming errorsWe present our experience in performing the formal, machine-checked verification of the seL4 microkernel from an abstract specification down to its C implementation We assume correctness of compiler, assembly code, and hardware, and we used a unique design approach that fuses formal and operating systems techniques To our knowledge, this is the first formal proof of functional correctness of a complete, general-purpose operating-system kernel Functional correctness means here that the implementation always strictly follows our high-level abstract specification of kernel behaviour This encompasses traditional design and implementation safety properties such as the kernel will never crash, and it will never perform an unsafe operation It also proves much more: we can predict precisely how the kernel will behave in every possible situationseL4, a third-generation microkernel of L4 provenance, comprises 8,700 lines of C code and 600 lines of assembler Its performance is comparable to other high-performance L4 kernels