The Verisoft Approach to Systems Verification

  • Eyad Alkassar
  • Mark A. Hillebrand
  • Dirk Leinenbach
  • Norbert W. Schirmer
  • Artem Starostin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5295)


The Verisoft project aims at the pervasive formal verification from the application layer over the system level software, comprising a microkernel and a compiler, down to the hardware. The different layers of the system give rise to various abstraction levels to conduct the reasoning steps efficiently. The lower the abstraction level the more details and invariants are necessary to ensure overall system correctness. Illustrated by a page-fault handler we discuss the layers and the trade-off between efficiency of reasoning at a more abstract layer versus the development of meta-theory to transfer the verification results between the layers.


Operational Semantic Physical Machine Physical Memory Hoare Logic Processor Correctness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bevier, W.R., Hunt Jr., W.A., Moore, J S., Young, W.D.: An approach to systems verification. Journal of Automated Reasoning 5(4), 411–428 (1989)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moore, J S.: A grand challenge proposal for formal methods: A verified stack. In: Aichernig, B.K., Maibaum, T.S.E. (eds.) Formal Methods at the Crossroads. From Panacea to Foundational Support. LNCS, vol. 2757, pp. 161–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neumann, P.G., Feiertag, R.J.: PSOS Revisited. In: 19th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSA 2003), Las Vegas, NV, USA, pp. 208–216. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walker, B.J., Kemmerer, R.A., Popek, G.J.: Specification and verification of the UCLA Unix security kernel. Comm. ACM 23(2), 118–131 (1980)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heiser, G., Elphinstone, K., Kuz, I., Klein, G., Petters, S.M.: Towards trustworthy computing systems: Taking microkernels to the next level. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 41(4), 3–11 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tuch, H., Klein, G., Norrish, M.: Types, bytes, and separation logic. In: POPL 2007, pp. 97–108. ACM Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tuch, H., Klein, G.: Verifying the L4 virtual memory subsystem. In: Proc. NICTA Formal Methods Workshop on Operating Systems Verification, pp. 73–97 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schirmer, N.: Verification of Sequential Imperative Programs in Isabelle/HOL. PhD thesis, Technische Universität München (April 2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ni, Z., Yu, D., Shao, Z.: Using XCAP to certify realistic systems code: Machine context management. In: Schneider, K., Brandt, J. (eds.) TPHOLs 2007. LNCS, vol. 4732, pp. 189–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hohmuth, M., Tews, H., Stephens, S.G.: Applying source-code verification to a microkernel: The VFiasco project. In: SIGOPS 2002, pp. 165–169. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tverdyshev, S., Shadrin, A.: Formal verification of gate-level computer systems. In: Rozier, K.Y. (ed.) LFM 2008. NASA STI, NASA, pp. 56–58 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burstall, R.: Some techniques for proving correctness of programs which alter data structures. In: Meltzer, B., Michie, D. (eds.) Machine Intelligence 7, pp. 23–50. Edinburgh University Press (1972)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Daum, M., Maus, S., Schirmer, N., Seghir, M.N.: Integration of a software model checker into Isabelle. In: Sutcliffe, G., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3835, pp. 381–395. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ballarin, C.: Locales and locale expressions in Isabelle/Isar. In: Berardi, S., Coppo, M., Damiani, F. (eds.) TYPES 2003. LNCS, vol. 3085, pp. 34–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ballarin, C.: Interpretation of locales in Isabelle: Theories and proof contexts. In: Borwein, J.M., Farmer, W.M. (eds.) MKM 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4108, pp. 31–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petrova, E.: Verification of the C0 Compiler Implementation on the Source Code Level. PhD thesis, Saarland University, Computer Science Department (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leinenbach, D.: Compiler Verification in the Context of Pervasive System Verification. PhD thesis, Saarland University, Computer Science Department (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alkassar, E., Hillebrand, M.A.: Formal functional verification of device drivers. In: Woodcock, J., Shankar, N. (eds.) VSTTE 2008. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alkassar, E., Schirmer, N., Starostin, A.: Formal pervasive verification of a paging mechanism. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 109–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tverdyshev, S., Alkassar, E.: Efficient bit-level model reductions for automated hardware verification. In: TIME 2008, pp. 164–172. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/Isar — A Versatile Environment for Human-Readable Formal Proof Documents. PhD thesis, Technische Universität München (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL — A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. LNCS, vol. 2283. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eyad Alkassar
    • 1
  • Mark A. Hillebrand
    • 2
  • Dirk Leinenbach
    • 2
  • Norbert W. Schirmer
    • 2
  • Artem Starostin
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität des SaarlandesSaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI)SaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations