Explaining Counterexamples with Giant-Step Assertion Checking
Authors:
Benedikt Becker,
Cláudio Belo Lourenço,
Claude Marché
Abstract:
Identifying the cause of a proof failure during deductive verification of programs is hard: it may be due to an incorrectness in the program, an incompleteness in the program annotations, or an incompleteness of the prover. The changes needed to resolve a proof failure depend on its category, but the prover cannot provide any help on the categorisation. When using an SMT solver to discharge a proo…
▽ More
Identifying the cause of a proof failure during deductive verification of programs is hard: it may be due to an incorrectness in the program, an incompleteness in the program annotations, or an incompleteness of the prover. The changes needed to resolve a proof failure depend on its category, but the prover cannot provide any help on the categorisation. When using an SMT solver to discharge a proof obligation, that solver can propose a model from a failed attempt, from which a possible counterexample can be derived. But the counterexample may be invalid, in which case it may add more confusion than help. To check the validity of a counterexample and to categorise the proof failure, we propose the comparison between the run-time assertion-checking (RAC) executions under two different semantics, using the counterexample as an oracle. The first RAC execution follows the normal program semantics, and a violation of a program annotation indicates an incorrectness in the program. The second RAC execution follows a novel "giant-step" semantics that does not execute loops nor function calls but instead retrieves return values and values of modified variables from the oracle. A violation of the program annotations only observed under giant-step execution characterises an incompleteness of the program annotations. We implemented this approach in the Why3 platform for deductive program verification and evaluated it using examples from prior literature.
△ Less
Submitted 6 August, 2021;
originally announced August 2021.
Lightweight Interactive Proving inside an Automatic Program Verifier
Authors:
Sylvain Dailler,
Claude Marché,
Yannick Moy
Abstract:
Among formal methods, the deductive verification approach allows establishing the strongest possible formal guarantees on critical software. The downside is the cost in terms of human effort required to design adequate formal specifications and to successfully discharge the required proof obligations. To popularize deductive verification in an industrial software development environment, it is e…
▽ More
Among formal methods, the deductive verification approach allows establishing the strongest possible formal guarantees on critical software. The downside is the cost in terms of human effort required to design adequate formal specifications and to successfully discharge the required proof obligations. To popularize deductive verification in an industrial software development environment, it is essential to provide means to progressively transition from simple and automated approaches to deductive verification. The SPARK environment, for development of critical software written in Ada, goes towards this goal by providing automated tools for formally proving that some code fulfills the requirements expressed in Ada contracts. In a program verifier that makes use of automatic provers to discharge the proof obligations, a need for some additional user interaction with proof tasks shows up: either to help analyzing the reason of a proof failure or, ultimately, to discharge the verification conditions that are out-of-reach of state-of-the-art automatic provers. Adding interactive proof features in SPARK appears to be complicated by the fact that the proof toolchain makes use of the independent, intermediate verification tool Why3, which is generic enough to accept multiple front-ends for different input languages. This paper reports on our approach to extend Why3 with interactive proof features and also with a generic client-server infrastructure allowing integration of proof interaction into an external, front-end graphical user interface such as the one of SPARK.
△ Less
Submitted 27 November, 2018;
originally announced November 2018.
