使用抽象和有界模型检查的工业规模代码的有效安全证明

P. Darke, Bharti Chimdyalwar, Avriti Chauhan, R. Venkatesh
{"title":"使用抽象和有界模型检查的工业规模代码的有效安全证明","authors":"P. Darke, Bharti Chimdyalwar, Avriti Chauhan, R. Venkatesh","doi":"10.1109/ICST.2017.53","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Loop Abstraction followed by Bounded Model Checking, or LABMC in short, is a promising recent technique for proving safety of large programs. In an experimental setup proposed last year [14], LABMC was combined with slicing and Iterative Context Extension (ICE) with the aim of achieving scalability over industrial code. In this paper, we address two major limitations of that set-up, namely i) the inability of ICE to prune redundant code in a verification context, and ii) the unavailability of a tool that implements the set-up. We propose an improvement over ICE called Iterative Function Level Slicing (IFLS) and incorporate it in our tool called ELABMC, to offer an efficient implementation of [14]. We substantiate our claim with two sets of experiments over industrial applications as well as academic benchmarks. Quantifying the benefits of IFLS over traditional ICE in one, our results report that IFLS leads to 34.9% increase in efficiency, 17.7% improvement in precision, and scales in 14.2% more cases. With the second experiment, we show that ELABMC outperforms state-of-the-art verification techniques in the task of identifying static analysis warnings as false alarms.","PeriodicalId":112258,"journal":{"name":"2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST)","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficient Safety Proofs for Industry-Scale Code Using Abstractions and Bounded Model Checking\",\"authors\":\"P. Darke, Bharti Chimdyalwar, Avriti Chauhan, R. Venkatesh\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ICST.2017.53\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Loop Abstraction followed by Bounded Model Checking, or LABMC in short, is a promising recent technique for proving safety of large programs. In an experimental setup proposed last year [14], LABMC was combined with slicing and Iterative Context Extension (ICE) with the aim of achieving scalability over industrial code. In this paper, we address two major limitations of that set-up, namely i) the inability of ICE to prune redundant code in a verification context, and ii) the unavailability of a tool that implements the set-up. We propose an improvement over ICE called Iterative Function Level Slicing (IFLS) and incorporate it in our tool called ELABMC, to offer an efficient implementation of [14]. We substantiate our claim with two sets of experiments over industrial applications as well as academic benchmarks. Quantifying the benefits of IFLS over traditional ICE in one, our results report that IFLS leads to 34.9% increase in efficiency, 17.7% improvement in precision, and scales in 14.2% more cases. With the second experiment, we show that ELABMC outperforms state-of-the-art verification techniques in the task of identifying static analysis warnings as false alarms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":112258,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST)\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICST.2017.53\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICST.2017.53","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

循环抽象之后是有界模型检查,简称LABMC,是最近证明大型程序安全性的一种很有前途的技术。在去年提出的实验设置[14]中,LABMC与切片和迭代上下文扩展(ICE)相结合,目的是实现工业代码的可扩展性。在本文中,我们解决了该设置的两个主要限制,即i) ICE无法在验证上下文中修剪冗余代码,以及ii)实现该设置的工具不可用。我们提出了对ICE的改进,称为迭代功能级切片(IFLS),并将其纳入我们的工具ELABMC中,以提供有效的实现[14]。我们通过工业应用和学术基准的两组实验来证实我们的主张。综合量化IFLS与传统ICE相比的优势,我们的研究结果表明,IFLS的效率提高了34.9%,精度提高了17.7%,并且在14.2%的病例中增加了量表。通过第二个实验,我们表明ELABMC在将静态分析警告识别为假警报的任务中优于最先进的验证技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficient Safety Proofs for Industry-Scale Code Using Abstractions and Bounded Model Checking
Loop Abstraction followed by Bounded Model Checking, or LABMC in short, is a promising recent technique for proving safety of large programs. In an experimental setup proposed last year [14], LABMC was combined with slicing and Iterative Context Extension (ICE) with the aim of achieving scalability over industrial code. In this paper, we address two major limitations of that set-up, namely i) the inability of ICE to prune redundant code in a verification context, and ii) the unavailability of a tool that implements the set-up. We propose an improvement over ICE called Iterative Function Level Slicing (IFLS) and incorporate it in our tool called ELABMC, to offer an efficient implementation of [14]. We substantiate our claim with two sets of experiments over industrial applications as well as academic benchmarks. Quantifying the benefits of IFLS over traditional ICE in one, our results report that IFLS leads to 34.9% increase in efficiency, 17.7% improvement in precision, and scales in 14.2% more cases. With the second experiment, we show that ELABMC outperforms state-of-the-art verification techniques in the task of identifying static analysis warnings as false alarms.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信