In this paper we describe the ForSpec Temporal Logic (FTL), the new temporal property-specification logic of ForSpec, Intel's new formal specification language. The key features of FTL are as follows: it is a linear temporal logic, based on Pnueli's LTL, it is based on a rich set of logical and arithmetical operations on bit vectors to describe state properties, it enables the user to define temporal connectives over time windows, it enables the user to define regular events, which are regular sequences of Boolean events, and then relate such events via special connectives, it enables the user to express properties about the past, and it includes constructs that enable the user to model multiple clock and reset signals, which is useful in the verification of hardware design.

Abstract. The growing complexity of hardware optimizations employed by multiprocessors leads to subtle distinctions among allowed and disallowed behaviors, posing challenges in specifying their memory models formally and accurately, and in understanding and analyzing the behavior of concurrent software. This complexity is particularly evident in the IBM R Power Architecture R , for which a faithful specification was published only in 2011 using an operational style. In this paper we present an equivalent axiomatic specification, which is more abstract and concise. Although not officially sanctioned by the vendor, our results indicate that this axiomatic specification provides a reasonable basis for reasoning about current IBM R POWER R multiprocessors. We establish the equivalence of the axiomatic and operational specifications using both manual proof and extensive testing. To demonstrate that the constraint-based style of axiomatic specification is more amenable to computer-aided verification, we develop a SAT-based tool for evaluating possible outcomes of multi-threaded test programs, and we show that this tool is significantly more efficient than a tool based on an operational specification.

Abstract. Well-defined memory consistency models are necessary for writing correct parallel software. Developing and understanding formal specifications of hardware memory models is a challenge due to the subtle differences in allowed reorderings and different specification styles. To facilitate exploration of memory model specifications, we have developed a technique for systematically comparing hardware memory models specified using both operational and axiomatic styles. Given two specifications, our approach generates all possible multi-threaded programs up to a specified bound, and for each such program, checks if one of the models can lead to an observable behavior not possible in the other model. When the models differs, the tool finds a minimal "litmus test" program that demonstrates the difference. A number of optimizations reduce the number of programs that need to be examined. Our prototype implementation has successfully compared both axiomatic and operational specifications of six different hardware memory models. We describe two case studies: (1) development of a non-store atomic variant of an existing memory model, which illustrates the use of the tool while developing a new memory model, and (2) identification of a subtle specification mistake in a recently published axiomatic specification of TSO.

In this paper, we describe a completely automated framework for iterative abstraction refinement that is fully integrated into a formal-verification environment. This environment consists of three basic software tools: Forecast, a BDD-based model checker, Thunder, a SAT-based bounded model checker, and MCE, a technology for multiple-counterexample analysis. In our framework, the initial abstraction is chosen relative to the property under verification. The abstraction is model checked by Forecast; in case of failure, a counterexample is returned. Our framework includes an abstract counterexample analyzer module that applies techniques for bounded model checking to check whether the abstract counterexample holds in the concrete model. If it does, it is extended to a concrete counterexample. This important capability is provided as a separate tool that also addresses one of the major problems of verification by manual abstraction. If the counterexample is spurious, we use a novel refinement heuristic based on MCE to guide the refinement. After the part of the abstract model to be refined is chosen, our refinement algorithm computes a new abstraction that includes as much logic as possible without adding too many new variables, therefore striking a balance between refining the abstraction and keeping its size manageable. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework on challenging Intel designs that were not amenable to BDD-based model-checking approaches.

Microcode is used to facilitate new technologies in Intel CPU designs. A critical requirement is that new designs be backwardly compatible with legacy code when new functionalities are disabled. Several features distinguish microcode from other software systems, such as: interaction with the external environment, sensitivity to exceptions, and the complexity of instructions. This work describes the ideas behind MICROFORMAL, a technology for fully automated formal verification of functional backward compatibility of microcode.