Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification
POPL '85 Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages
Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver
Proceedings of the 38th annual Design Automation Conference
Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR
Proceedings of the 5th Colloquium on International Symposium on Programming
Design and Synthesis of Synchronization Skeletons Using Branching-Time Temporal Logic
Logic of Programs, Workshop
Applications of synchronization coverage
Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming
Probability and Computing: Randomized Algorithms and Probabilistic Analysis
Probability and Computing: Randomized Algorithms and Probabilistic Analysis
Software model checking: searching for computations in the abstract or the concrete
IFM'05 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Integrated Formal Methods
Instrumenting where it hurts: an automatic concurrent debugging technique
Proceedings of the 2007 international symposium on Software testing and analysis
Can Component/Service-Based Systems Be Proved Correct?
SOFSEM '09 Proceedings of the 35th Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Computer Science
ExpliSAT: Guiding SAT-based software verification with explicit states
HVC'06 Proceedings of the 2nd international Haifa verification conference on Hardware and software, verification and testing
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Software model checking came to the focus of research recently, with sharp growth in the number of safety-critical applications and in the complexity of software. In model checking of software we meet some obstacles which do not exist in model checking of hardware: the state explosion problem is more acute, the model often consists of many processes that run concurrently, and there also can be a requirement for correct behavior in the presence of failures. Also, the programs are written in high-level programming languages, which causes two problems: the model-checker has to understand a programming language,and the state space of the program can be infinite (for example, the range of values for integer values is infinite in theory). In this paper, we present two case studies of real projects at IBM, which were formally modeled and verified using ExpliSAT model checker, as well a testing tool ConTest. The second case also involves modeling limited Byzantine (malicious) failures of processes. We discuss the special structure of the control flow graph of these programs and perform probabilistic analysis of the number of random executions needed in order to execute all control flow paths with high probability. We also compare the performance of ConTest and ExpliSAT on these case studies.