Skip to main content

Automated Verification of Safety Requirements using CCS and Binary Decision Diagrams

  • Conference paper
Safe Comp 97

Abstract

There is a growing interest in the application of formed methods in the software development process, especially in the area of safety critical applications. Formal verification, however, often requires a high effort. With the availability of automated methods this effort could be largely reduced and thus enable a more widespread application of formal methods. Process Calculi like CCS are a common formalism for modelling and verification of protocols and distributed applications. A major problem in computer-aided verification of CCS models is the inevitable combinatorial state space explosion. Existing verification tools mostly operate on an explicit representation of the state space in form of a labelled transition system (LTS), and often already fail in establishing this LTS. Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) are based on a compact, implicit representation of transition systems and state sets and therefore offer a promising alternative. In this paper we describe the implementation of such a verification tool based on BDDs. The tool accepts CCS-definitions, automatically derives suitable encodings of states and actions and creates an efficient encoding of the LTS which accounts for the structure of the modularized CCS-hierarchy. Additionally it ensures that the specification models a finite transition system. The efficiency of this method will be investigated with two examples where the first is Milners well known scheduler, which is mostly of academic relevance as a benchmark for verification tools. The second example, which is of more practical interest, considers the popular CSMA/CD-communication protocol, including propagation delays on the communication channel. As such it allows more relevant conclusions about the appropriateness of the created tool.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. R. Milner: “Communication and Concurrency”, Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science, ISBN 0-13-114984-9.

    Google Scholar 

  2. H. Garavel, J. Sifakis: “Compilation and verification of lotos specifications”, in L. Logrippo, R.L. Probert, H. Ural, editors, Procs. 10th International Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, pages 379–394, Amsterdam, June 1990, North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J.A. Manas, T. de Miguel, J. Salvachua, A. Azcorra: “Tool support to implement LOTOS formal specifications”, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 25:815–839, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. R. Milner, J. Parrow, D. Walker: “A calculus of mobile processes”, in Information and Computing 100, 1992, pp. 1–77.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, B. Steffen: “The concurrency workbench: A semantics-based tool for the verification of concurrent systems”, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 15(l):36–72, January 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. B. Kramer, G. Henze etal. : “Deriving ANSA ware Applications from Formal Specifications”, Proceedings of SDPS’95, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Randal E. Bryant: “Graph-based Algorithms for Boolean function manipulation”, IEEE Trans. Computers, C-35(8): 677 – 691, August 1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, K.L. McMillan, D.L. Dill, J. Hwang: “Symbolic Model Checking: 1020 states and beyond”. Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  9. K. L. McMillan: “Symbolic Model Checking: An approach to the State Explosion Problem.”, PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon Univeristy, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. Enders, T. Filkorn, D. Taubner: “Generating BDDs for symbolic model checking in CCS”, in Distributed Computing, 1993, 6:155–164.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Fernandez, Kerbrat, Mounier: “Symbolic equivalence checking”, Computer Aided Verification, Proc. 5th Int. Conf., CAV’93, Elounda, Greece, June/July 1993

    Google Scholar 

  12. K. Gotthardt, I. Scheler: “Formale Verifikation von Vielfach-ZugrifTsprotokollen in CCS” GI-Fachtagung Softwaretechnik, Braunschweig, 1995

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lichtenecker, R., Gotthardt, K. (1997). Automated Verification of Safety Requirements using CCS and Binary Decision Diagrams. In: Daniel, P. (eds) Safe Comp 97. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0997-6_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0997-6_19

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-76191-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-0997-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics