Java model checking

Park, D.Y.W.; Stern, Ulrich; Skakkebæk, Jens U.; Dill, David L.

doi:10.1109/ase.2000.873671

Cited by 46 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…JavaFAN model checks the property and returns true in 17 minutes (no partial order reduction was used). This compares favorably with the model checker in [8] which without using the partial order reduction performs the task in more than 100 minutes (both on a 2.4GHz PC).…”

Section: -Stagementioning

confidence: 57%

“…The code Tests JVM Java DP(5) 4.5 9.9 DP(6) 33.3 81.7 DP(7) 4.4m 15.1m DP(8) 13.7m 98m DP(9) 803.2m -DF(5) 3.2m 19.2 DF(6) 23.9m 2.4m DF(7) 686.4m 27m contains a missing critical section, that leads to a data-race between two concurrent threads, which further caused a deadlock. JavaFAN finds the deadlock in 0.3 of a second in the bytecode level and 0.09 of a second in the source-code level, while the tool in [8] finds it in more than 2 seconds in its most optimized version.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Formal Analysis of Java Programs in JavaFAN

Farzan

Feng

Meseguer

et al. 2004

Computer Aided Verification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. JavaFAN is a Java program analysis framework, that can symbolically execute multithreaded programs, detect safety violations searching through an unbounded state space, and verify finite state programs by explicit state model checking. Both Java language and JVM bytecode analyses are possible. JavaFAN's implementation consists of only 3,000 lines of Maude code, specifying formally the semantics of Java and JVM in rewriting logic and then using the capabilities of Maude for efficient execution, search and LTL model checking of rewriting theories.

show abstract

Section: -Stagementioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal Analysis of Java Programs in JavaFAN

Farzan

Feng

Meseguer

et al. 2004

Computer Aided Verification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the formal analysis tools obtained for free from R Java and R JV M are competitive for some applications with similar language-specific tools such a NASA-Ames' Java Path Finder [45] and Stanford's Java model checker [35]. Similarly, our experiments with the generic partial order reduction technique indicate that it can achieve rates of space and time reduction similar to those of language-specific tools such as SPIN [24].…”

Section: Formal Analysismentioning

confidence: 69%

Computational Logical Frameworks and Generic Program Analysis Technologies

Meseguer

Roşu

2008

Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The technologies developed to solve the verifying compiler grand challenge should be generic, that is, not tied to a particular language but widely applicable to many languages. Such technologies should also be semantics-based, that is, based on a rigorous formal semantics of the languages.For this, a computational logical framework with efficient executability and a spectrum of meta-tools can serve as a basis on which to: (1) define the formal semantics of any programming language; and (2) develop generic program analysis techniques and tools that can be instantiated to generate powerful analysis tools for each language of interest.Not all logical frameworks can serve such purposes well. We first list some specific requirements that we think are important to properly address the grand challenge. Then we present our experience with rewriting logic as supported by the Maude system and its formal tool environment. Finally, we discuss some future directions of research. Logical Framework RequirementsBased on experience, current trends, and the basic requirements of the grand challenge problem, we believe that any logical framework serving as a computational infrastructure for the various technologies for solving the grand challenge should have at least the following features:1. good data representation capabilities, 2. support for concurrency and nondeterminism, 3. simplicity of the formalism, 4. efficient implementability, and efficient meta-tools, 5. support for reflection, 6. support for inductive reasoning, preferably with initial model semantics, 7. support for generation of proof objects, acting as correctness certificates.While proponents of a framework may claim that it has all these features, in some cases further analysis can show that it either lacks some of them, or can only "simulate" certain features in a quite artificial way. A good example is the

show abstract

“…We have already mentioned BLAST and SLAM [Eisner 2005;Gunter and Peled 2005] which operate on C source code. Model checkers for Java code include Bandera [Corbett et al 2000], Java PathFinder [Havelund and Pressburger 1998] and SAL [Park et al 2000], which combine model checking with abstraction and theorem proving techniques, too. Another example for source code verification is the VeriSoft model checker [Godefroid 1997] which systematically searches state spaces of concurrent programs written in C or C++ by means of a state-less search heuristic that borrows ideas from partial-order reduction.…”

Section: Formal Verification and Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%