Skip to main content

Counterexample Guided Path Reduction for Static Program Analysis

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 5930))

Abstract

In this work we introduce counterexample guided path reduction based on interval constraint solving for static program analysis. The aim of this technique is to reduce the number of false positives by reducing the number of feasible paths in the abstraction iteratively. Given a counterexample, a set of observers is computed which exclude infeasible paths in the next iteration. This approach combines ideas from counterexample guided abstraction refinement for software verification with static analysis techniques that employ interval constraint solving. The advantage is that the analysis becomes less conservative than static analysis, while it benefits from the fact that interval constraint solving deals naturally with loops. We demonstrate that the proposed approach is effective in reducing the number of false positives, and compare it to other static checkers for C/C++ program analysis.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Gawlitza, T., Seidl, H.: Precise fixpoint computation through strategy iteration. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 300–315. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Software verification with BLAST. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 235–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Clarke, E., Kröning, D., Sharygina, N., Yorav, K.: SATABS: SAT-Based Predicate Abstraction for ANSI-C. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 570–574. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Kroening, D., Weissenbacher, G.: Counterexamples with loops for predicate abstraction. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 152–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Clarke, E., Kröning, D., Lerda, F.: A Tool for Checking ANSI-C Programs. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 168–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Gulavani, B., Rajamani, S.: Counterexample driven refinement for abstract interpretation. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 474–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang, C., Yang, Z.-J., Gupta, A., Ivančić, F.: Using counterexamples for improving the precision of reachability computation with polyhedra. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 352–365. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Fehnker, A., Huuck, R., Jayet, P., Lussenburg, M., Rauch, F.: Model checking software at compile time. In: Proc. TASE 2007. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Holzmann, G.: Static source code checking for user-defined properties. In: Proc. IDPT 2002, Pasadena, CA, USA (June 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dams, D.R., Namjoshi, K.S.: Orion: High-precision methods for static error analysis of C and C++ programs. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 138–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Schmidt, D.A., Steffen, B.: Program analysis as model checking of abstract interpretations. In: Levi, G. (ed.) SAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1503, pp. 351–380. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Fehnker, A., Clarke, E., Jha, S., Krogh, B.: Refining abstractions of hybrid systems using counterexample fragments. In: Morari, M., Thiele, L. (eds.) HSCC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3414, pp. 242–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Jha, S.K., Krogh, B., Clarke, E., Weimer, J., Palkar, A.: Iterative relaxation abstraction for linear hybrid automata. In: HSCC 2007. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ermedahl, A., Sjödin, M.: Interval analysis of C-variables using abstract interpretation. Technical report, Uppsala University (December 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jhala, R., McMillan, K.L.: A practical and complete approach to predicate refinement. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 459–473. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fehnker, A., Huuck, R., Seefried, S. (2010). Counterexample Guided Path Reduction for Static Program Analysis. In: Dams, D., Hannemann, U., Steffen, M. (eds) Concurrency, Compositionality, and Correctness. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5930. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11512-7_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11512-7_20

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-11511-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-11512-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics