JCWIT: A Correctness-Witness Validator for Java Programs Based on Bounded Model Checking
Authors: 
Zaiyu Cheng, Tong Wu, Peter Schrammel, Norbert Tihanyi, Eddie B. de Lima Filho, Lucas C. CordeiroAuthors Info & Claims
Zaiyu Cheng, Tong Wu, Peter Schrammel, Norbert Tihanyi, Eddie B. de Lima Filho, Lucas C. CordeiroAuthors Info & ClaimsPages 1831 - 1835
Abstract
Witness validation is a formal verification method to independently verify software verification tool results, with two main categories: violation and correctness witness validators. Validators for violation witnesses in Java include Wit4Java and GWIT, but no dedicated correctness witness validators exist. To address this gap, this paper presents the Java Correctness-Witness Validator (JCWIT), the first tool to validate correctness witnesses in Java programs. JCWIT accepts an original program, a specification, and a correctness witness as inputs. Then, it uses invariants of each witness’s execution state as conditions to be incorporated into the original program in the form of assertions, thus instrumenting it. Next, JCWIT employs an established tool, Java Bounded Model Checker (JBMC), to verify the transformed program, hence examining the reproducibility of correct witness results. We evaluated JCWIT in the SV-COMP ReachSafety benchmark, and the results show that JCWIT can correctly validate the correctness witnesses generated by Java verifiers.
Supplementary Material
This is an archived version of the tool JCWIT 1.0. Note: See https://github.com/Chriszai for detailed instructions on how to use it.
- Download
- 141.69 KB
References
[1]
Jade Alglave, Alastair F. Donaldson, Daniel Kroening, and Michael Tautschnig. 2011. Making Software Verification Tools Really Work. In Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis, Tevfik Bultan and Pao-Ann Hsiung (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 28–42. isbn:978-3-642-24372-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24372-1_3
[2]
Dirk Beyer. 2022. Progress on Software Verification: SV-COMP 2022. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Dana Fisman and Grigore Rosu (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 375–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_20
[3]
Dirk Beyer. 2023. Competition on Software Verification and Witness Validation: SV-COMP 2023. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Sriram Sankaranarayanan and Natasha Sharygina (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham. 495–522. isbn:978-3-031-30820-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30820-8_29
[4]
Dirk Beyer. 2024. State of the Art in Software Verification and Witness Validation: SV-COMP 2024. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Bernd Finkbeiner and Laura Kovács (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham. 299–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_15
[5]
Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Daniel Dietsch, and Matthias Heizmann. 2016. Correctness witnesses: exchanging verification results between verifiers. In Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE 2016). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 326–337. isbn:9781450342186 https://doi.org/10.1145/2950290.2950351
[6]
Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Daniel Dietsch, Matthias Heizmann, Thomas Lemberger, and Michael Tautschnig. 2022. Verification Witnesses. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 31, 4 (2022), Article 57, sep, 69 pages. issn:1049-331X https://doi.org/10.1145/3477579
[7]
Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Daniel Dietsch, Matthias Heizmann, and Andreas Stahlbauer. 2015. Witness validation and stepwise testification across software verifiers. In Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2015). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 721–733. isbn:9781450336758 https://doi.org/10.1145/2786805.2786867
[8]
Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Thomas Lemberger, and Michael Tautschnig. 2018. Tests from Witnesses. In Tests and Proofs, Catherine Dubois and Burkhart Wolff (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 3–23. isbn:978-3-319-92994-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92994-1_1
[9]
Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl. 2020. MetaVal: Witness Validation via Verification. In Computer Aided Verification, Shuvendu K. Lahiri and Chao Wang (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 165–177. isbn:978-3-030-53291-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53291-8_10
[10]
Armin Biere, Alessandro Cimatti, Edmund M Clarke, Ofer Strichman, and Yunshan Zhu. 2009. Bounded model checking. Handbook of satisfiability, 185, 99 (2009), 457–481. https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA201002
[11]
Maria Christakis and Christian Bird. 2016. What developers want and need from program analysis: an empirical study. In Proceedings of the 31st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 332–343. isbn:9781450338455 https://doi.org/10.1145/2970276.2970347
[12]
Lucas Cordeiro, Pascal Kesseli, Daniel Kroening, Peter Schrammel, and Marek Trtik. 2018. JBMC: A Bounded Model Checking Tool for Verifying Java Bytecode. In Computer Aided Verification, Hana Chockler and Georg Weissenbacher (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 183–190. isbn:978-3-319-96145-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96145-3_10
[13]
Lucas Cordeiro, Daniel Kroening, and Peter Schrammel. 2019. JBMC: Bounded Model Checking for Java Bytecode. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Dirk Beyer, Marieke Huisman, Fabrice Kordon, and Bernhard Steffen (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 219–223. isbn:978-3-030-17502-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_17
[14]
Lucas C. Cordeiro, Daniel Kroening, and Peter Schrammel. 2019. Benchmarking of Java Verification Tools at the Software Verification Competition (SV-COMP). SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 43, 4 (2019), jan, 56. issn:0163-5948 https://doi.org/10.1145/3282517.3282529
[15]
Vijay D’Silva, Daniel Kroening, and Georg Weissenbacher. 2008. A Survey of Automated Techniques for Formal Software Verification. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 27, 7 (2008), 1165–1178. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCAD.2008.923410
[16]
Falk Howar and Malte Mues. 2022. GWIT: A Witness Validator for Java based on GraalVM (Competition Contribution). In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Dana Fisman and Grigore Rosu (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 446–450. isbn:978-3-030-99527-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_29
[17]
R.M. McConnell, K. Mehlhorn, S. Näher, and P. Schweitzer. 2011. Certifying algorithms. Computer Science Review, 5, 2 (2011), 119–161. issn:1574-0137 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2010.09.009
[18]
Herbert Rocha, Raimundo Barreto, Lucas Cordeiro, and Arilo Dias Neto. 2012. Understanding Programming Bugs in ANSI-C Software Using Bounded Model Checking Counter-Examples. In Integrated Formal Methods, John Derrick, Stefania Gnesi, Diego Latella, and Helen Treharne (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 128–142. isbn:978-3-642-30729-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30729-4_10
[19]
D.R. Wallace and R.U. Fujii. 1989. Software verification and validation: an overview. IEEE Software, 6, 3 (1989), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.28119
[20]
Tong Wu, Peter Schrammel, and Lucas C. Cordeiro. 2022. Wit4Java: A Violation-Witness Validator for Java Verifiers (Competition Contribution). In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Dana Fisman and Grigore Rosu (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 484–489. isbn:978-3-030-99527-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_36
Index Terms
- JCWIT: A Correctness-Witness Validator for Java Programs Based on Bounded Model Checking
Recommendations
LLM-Generated Invariants for Bounded Model Checking Without Loop Unrolling
ASE '24: Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software EngineeringWe investigate a modification of the classical Bounded Model Checking (BMC) procedure that does not handle loops through unrolling but via modifications to the control flow graph (CFG). A portion of the CFG representing a loop is replaced by a node ...
Bounded model checking of high-integrity software
HILT '13: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGAda annual conference on High integrity language technologyModel checking [5] is an automated algorithmic technique for exhaustive verification of systems, described as finite state machines, against temporal logic [9] specifications. It has been used successfully to verify hardware at an industrial scale [6]. ...
Three-valued logic in bounded model checking
MEMOCODE '05: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-DesignIn principle, bounded model checking (BMC) leads to semi-decision procedures that can be used to verify liveness properties and to falsify safety properties. If the procedures fail, there is usually no information about the validity of the considered ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
September 2024
1928 pages
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 11 September 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
ISSTA '24
Sponsor:
ISSTA '24: 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis
September 16 - 20, 2024
Vienna, Austria
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 58 of 213 submissions, 27%
Upcoming Conference
ISSTA '25
- Sponsor:
- sigsoft
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 112Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)112
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)25
Reflects downloads up to 06 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in