On Designing an ACL-2-Based C Integer Type Safety Checking Tool

504 Pages·2013·8.84 MB·English

Guillaume Brat
Neha Rungta
Arnaud Venet (Eds.)
1 NASA
7
8
7

S
Formal Methods
C
N
L
5th International Symposium, NFM 2013
Moffett Field, CA, USA, May 2013
Proceedings
123
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7871
CommencedPublicationin1973
FoundingandFormerSeriesEditors:
GerhardGoos,JurisHartmanis,andJanvanLeeuwen
EditorialBoard
DavidHutchison
LancasterUniversity,UK
TakeoKanade
CarnegieMellonUniversity,Pittsburgh,PA,USA
JosefKittler
UniversityofSurrey,Guildford,UK
JonM.Kleinberg
CornellUniversity,Ithaca,NY,USA
AlfredKobsa
UniversityofCalifornia,Irvine,CA,USA
FriedemannMattern
ETHZurich,Switzerland
JohnC.Mitchell
StanfordUniversity,CA,USA
MoniNaor
WeizmannInstituteofScience,Rehovot,Israel
OscarNierstrasz
UniversityofBern,Switzerland
C.PanduRangan
IndianInstituteofTechnology,Madras,India
BernhardSteffen
TUDortmundUniversity,Germany
MadhuSudan
MicrosoftResearch,Cambridge,MA,USA
DemetriTerzopoulos
UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles,CA,USA
DougTygar
UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,CA,USA
GerhardWeikum
MaxPlanckInstituteforInformatics,Saarbruecken,Germany
Guillaume Brat Neha Rungta
Arnaud Venet (Eds.)
NASA
Formal Methods
5th International Symposium, NFM 2013
Moffett Field, CA, USA, May 14-16, 2013
Proceedings
1 3
VolumeEditors
GuillaumeBrat
NASAAmesResearchCenter
M/S269-2
MoffettField,CA94035-0001,USA
E-mail:[email protected]
NehaRungta
StingerGhaffarianTechnologiesInc.
NASAAmesResearchCenter
M/S269-2
MoffettField,CA94035-0001,USA
E-mail:[email protected]
ArnaudVenet
CarnegieMellonUniversity
NASAAmesResearchCenter
M/S269-2
MoffettField,CA94035-0001,USA
E-mail:[email protected]
ISSN0302-9743 e-ISSN1611-3349
ISBN978-3-642-38087-7 e-ISBN978-3-642-38088-4
DOI10.1007/978-3-642-38088-4
SpringerHeidelbergDordrechtLondonNewYork
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2013936402
CRSubjectClassification(1998):D.2.4,D.2,D.3,F.3,D.1,D.4.1
LNCSSublibrary:SL2–ProgrammingandSoftwareEngineering
©Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2013
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.Allrightsarereserved,whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialis
concerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,re-useofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting,
reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherway,andstorageindatabanks.Duplicationofthispublication
orpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsoftheGermanCopyrightLawofSeptember9,1965,
initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalwaysbeobtainedfromSpringer.Violationsareliable
toprosecutionundertheGermanCopyrightLaw.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,etc.inthispublicationdoesnotimply,
evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevantprotectivelaws
andregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Typesetting:Camera-readybyauthor,dataconversionbyScientificPublishingServices,Chennai,India
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Preface
The NASA Formal Methods Symposium is a forum for theoreticians and prac-
titionersfromacademia,industry,andgovernment,with the goalsofidentifying
challengesandprovidingsolutionstoachievingassuranceinmission-andsafety-
critical systems. Within NASA, for example, such systems include autonomous
robots, separation assurance algorithms for aircraft, next-generation air trans-
portation (NextGen), and autonomous rendezvous and docking for spacecraft.
Moreover, emerging paradigms such as code generation and safety cases are
bringing with them new challenges and opportunities. The focus of the sympo-
siumisonformaltechniques,theirtheory,currentcapabilitiesandlimitations,as
wellastheirapplicationtoaerospace,robotics,andothersafety-criticalsystems.
The NASA FormalMethods Symposiumis anannualeventthatwascreated
to highlightthe state of the artin formalmethods, both in theory and practice.
ThisvolumecontainsthepaperspresentedatNFM2013,the5thNASAFormal
Methods Symposium held during May 14–16, 2013, in Moffett Field. Previous
symposia were held in Norfolk, VA (LNCS 7226), Pasadena, CA (LNCS 6617),
Washington, DC, and Moffett Field, CA. There were two categories of papers
solicited in the call for papers of the symposium. The first category consists of
regularpapersdescribingfullydevelopedworkandcompleteresultsorcasestud-
ies,andthesecondcategoryconsistsofshortpapersdescribingtools,experience
reports,andworkinprogressorpreliminaryresults.TheNFM2013Symposium
received99submissions:75regularpapersand24shortpapers.Eachsubmission
underwent a rigorous review process and received at least three reviews; most
submissions,however,receivedfour reviews.After a lengthy discussionphase, a
total of 37 papers were accepted to be included in the proceedings out of which
28 are regular papers and 9 are short papers.
In addition to the refereed papers, the symposium features three keynotes
and two invited talks. The keynotes were presented by Kenneth McMillan from
MicrosoftResearchon“TheImportanceofGeneralizationinAutomatedProof,”
JohnRushbyfromSRIInternationalon“TheChallengeofHigh-AssuranceSoft-
ware,”andAlex AikenfromStanfordUniversityon“Using LearningTechniques
in Invariant Inference.” In addition to keynotes, the symposium featured two
invitedtalksbyRajeevJoshifromtheJetPropulsionLaboratoryon“Managing
Data for Curiosity, Fun and Profit”and Michael DeWalt from FAA on“Certifi-
cation Challenges when Using Formal Methods, Including Needs and Issues.”
The Organizing Committee would like to thank NASA for sponsoring the
symposium,themembersoftheNFMSteeringCommitteeforprovidingvaluable
advice and support, and the members of the Program Committee and the ex-
ternalreviewersfor their dedicationinreviewingsubmissionsandhelping shape
a strong programfor NFM 2013.We are grateful to the authors for choosing to
submit their work to NFM 2013 and the invited speakersfor sharing their work
VI Preface
and insights. Special thanks go to Lester Barrows whose picture of the shuttle
flying over Hangar One was used in the NFM publicity poster. Finally, organiz-
ingthis symposiumandputting togetherthe proceedingswasgreatlyfacilitated
by the use of EasyChair.
March 2013 Guillaume Brat
Neha Rungta
Arnaud Venet
Organization
Program Committee
Julia Badger NASA, USA
Thomas Ball Microsoft Research, USA
Guillaume Brat NASA Ames Research Center, CA, USA
Ricky Butler NASA Langley ResearchCenter, USA
Patrice Chalin Kansas State University, USA
Darren Cofer Rockwell Collins, USA
Radhia Cousot CNRS / E´cole normale sup´erieure, France
Leonardo De Moura Microsoft Research, USA
Ewen Denney SGT/NASA Ames, USA
Ben Di Vito NASA Langley ResearchCenter, USA
Jim Disbrow NASA Dryden Flight Center, USA
Gilles Dowek INRIA, France
Matt Dwyer University of Nebraska, USA
Eric Feron Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Jean-Christophe Filliatre CNRS, France
Kathleen Fisher Tufts University, USA
Pierre-Loic Garoche ONERA
Eric Goubault CEA/Saclay,France
Orna Grumberg Technion- IsraelInstitute ofTechnology,Israel
Klaus Havelund Jet PropulsionLaboratory,California Institute
of Technology, USA
Gerard Holzmann JPL, USA
Joe Hurd Galois, Inc.
Ranjit Jhala University of California, San Diego, USA
Hadas Kress-Gazit Cornell University, USA
Daniel Kroening Oxford University, UK
Tiziana Margaria University of Potsdam, Germany
C´elia Martinie IHCS-IRIT, University Paul
Sabatier - Toulouse III, France
Eric Mercer Brigham Young University, USA
Paul Miner NASA, USA
Cesar Munoz National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, USA
Natasha Neogi National Institute of Aerospace, USA
Ganesh Pai SGT / NASA Ames Research Center, USA
Corina Pasareanu CMU/NASA Ames Research Center, USA
Charles Pecheur UC Louvain, Beligum
VIII Organization
Suzette Person University of Nebraska-Lincoln,USA
Franco Raimondi Middlesex University, UK
John Regehr University of Utah, USA
Kristin Yvonne Rozier NASA Ames Research Center, USA
Neha Rungta NASA Ames Research Center, CA, USA
Sriram Sankaranarayanan University of Colorado,Boulder, USA
Stephen F. Siegel University of Delaware,USA
Radu Siminiceanu National Institute of Aerospace, USA
Henny Sipma Kestrel Technologies
Sarah Thompson NASA Ames Research Center, USA
Cesare Tinelli The University of Iowa, USA
Oksana Tkachuk Fujitsu Laboratories of America
Helmut Veith Vienna University of Technology, Austria
Arnaud Venet NASA Ames Research Center, USA
Willem Visser Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Michael Whalen University of Minnesota, USA
Virginie Wiels ONERA / DTIM
Reinhard Wilhelm Saarland University, Germany
Additional Reviewers
Backes, John Konnov, Igor
Barrett, Stephen Kupferman, Orna
Bogomolov,Sergiy Larson, Brian
Boniol, Fr´ed´eric Le Gall, Tristan
Bouissou, Olivier LIN, Shang-Wei
Brain, Martin Melquiond, Guillaume
Browne, Anca Mimram, Samuel
Chen, Xin Monniaux, David
Comb´efis, S´ebastien Narayanaswamy,Ganesh
Esna Ashari, Alireza Narkawicz, Anthony
Fowler, Kim Naujokat, Stefan
Ghorbal, Khalil Neubauer, Johannes
Giesl, Juergen Nimal, Vincent
Gladisch, Christoph Paskevich,Andrei
Godefroid, Patrice Passmore,Grant
Goodloe, Alwyn Putot, Sylvie
Hahn, Ernst Moritz Reisig, Wolfgang
Harrison, John Reynolds, Andrew
Heindel, Tobias Rinetzky, Noam
Hoenicke, Jochen Rojas, Jos´e Miguel
Jackson,Paul Rozier, Eric
Jobredeaux,Romain Schrammel, Peter
Komuravelli,Anvesh Schumann, Johann
Organization IX
Sharma, Subodh Thoma, Daniel
Shoham, Sharon Vizel, Yakir
Siegel, Stephen F. V´edrine, Franck
Sinn, Moritz Wang, Tim
Sinnig, Daniel Wang, Timothy
Slind, Konrad Widder, Josef
Sosnovich, Adi Wies, Thomas
Tautschnig, Michael Zuleger, Florian
(cid:2)
The Challenge of High-Assurance Software
John Rushby
Computer ScienceLaboratory
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA
It is difficult to build complex systems that (almost) never go (badly) wrong,
yet this is what we expect of airplanes and pacemakers and the phone system.
Inessence,wehaveto anticipateeverythingthatcouldfailorgowrong,develop
countermeasures, and then provide compelling evidence that we have done all
this correctly.
I outline some of the intellectual challenges in construction of suitable evi-
dence, particularly as applied to software. I introduce the idea of“possibly per-
fect”softwareanditsassociated“probabilityofperfection”anddescribehowthis
relates to correctness and reliability. I sketch some approaches to estimating a
probabilityof perfectionand touchonalternativeproposalssuchas those based
on“eliminative induction.”
I then describe epistemic and logic uncertainties in high-assurance software
and speculate on the relation between these and the notion of resilience.
Muchofthis materialisbasedonjointworkwithBev Littlewoodandothers
at City University UK, some of which is described a recent paper [1].
Reference
1. Littlewood, B., Rushby, J.: Reasoning about the reliability of diverse two-channel
systems in which one channel is“possibly perfect”. IEEE Transactions on Software
Engineering 38, 1178–1194 (2012)
* This work was supported by NASA contract NNA10DE79C and by DARPA under
contract FA8750-12-C-0284 with AFRL. The content is solely the responsibility of
theauthoranddoesnotnecessarilyrepresenttheofficialviewsofNASAorDARPA.