Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Verifying Atomicity Preservation and Deadlock Freedom of a Generic Shared Variable Mechanism Used in Model-To-Code Transformations

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD 2016)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 692))

Abstract

A challenging aspect of model-to-code transformations is to ensure that the semantic behavior of the input model is preserved in the output code. When constructing concurrent systems, this is mainly difficult due to the non-deterministic potential interaction between threads. In this paper, we consider this issue for a framework that implements a transformation chain from models expressed in the state machine based domain specific language SLCO to Java. In particular, we provide a fine-grained generic mechanism to preserve atomicity of SLCO statements in the Java implementation. We give its generic specification based on separation logic and verify it using the verification tool VeriFast. The solution can be regarded as a reusable module to safely implement atomic operations in concurrent systems. Moreover, we also prove with VeriFast that our mechanism does not introduce deadlocks. The specification formally ensures that the locks are not reentrant which simplifies the formal treatment of the Java locks.

D. Zhang, D. Bošnački, R. Kuiper and A. Wijs—This work was done with financial support from the China Scholarship Council (CSC) and ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking project EMC2 (grant agreement 621429).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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 EPUB and 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

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is an extended version of SLCO allowing multiple statements per transition. In this paper, we consider the basic language, since extended SLCO models can be translated to basic SLCO models [7].

  2. 2.

    The files can be obtained from http://www.mdsetechnology.org/attachments/article/3/LockingUnlockingSpec.zip.

  3. 3.

    http://www.eclipse.org/xtend.

References

  1. Abadi, M., Flanagan, C., Freund, S.N.: Types for safe locking: static race detection for java. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 28(2), 207–255 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Biswas, S., Huang, J., Sengupta, A., Bond, M.D.: DoubleChecker: efficient sound and precise atomicity checking. In: ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 49, pp. 28–39. ACM (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Blech, J., Glesner, S., Leitner, J.: Formal verification of java code generation from UML models. In: Fujaba Days, pp. 49–56 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bošnački, D., Brand, M., Gabriels, J., Jacobs, B., Kuiper, R., Roede, S., Wijs, A., Zhang, D.: Towards modular verification of threaded concurrent executable code generated from DSL models. In: Braga, C., Ölveczky, P.C. (eds.) FACS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9539, pp. 141–160. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28934-2_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Chaki, S., Clarke, E., Groce, A., Jha, S., Veith, H.: Modular verification of software components in C. In: ICSE, pp. 385–395. IEEE (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Choi, J.D., Lee, K., Loginov, A., O’Callahan, R., Sarkar, V., Sridharan, M.: Efficient and precise datarace detection for multithreaded object-oriented programs. In: ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 37, pp. 258–269. ACM (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Engelen, L.: From Napkin sketches to reliable software. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Engler, D., Ashcraft, K.: RacerX: effective, static detection of race conditions and deadlocks. In: ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, vol. 37, pp. 237–252. ACM (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Farzan, A., Madhusudan, P.: Causal atomicity. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 315–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11817963_30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Flanagan, C., Qadeer, S.: A type and effect system for atomicity. In: ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 38, pp. 338–349. ACM (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Havender, J.W.: Avoiding deadlock in multitasking systems. IBM Syst. J. 7(2), 74–84 (1968)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jacobs, B., Smans, J., Philippaerts, P., Vogels, F., Penninckx, W., Piessens, F.: VeriFast: a powerful, sound, predictable, fast verifier for C and java. In: Bobaru, M., Havelund, K., Holzmann, G.J., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6617, pp. 41–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20398-5_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Jacobs, B., Bosnacki, D., Kuiper, R.: Modular termination verification: extended version. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: Software model checking. ACM Comput. Surv. 41(4), 1–54 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kleppe, A., Warmer, J., Bast, W.: MDA Explained: the Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kolovos, D., Rose, L., Garca-Dominguez, A., Paige, R.: The Epsilon Book. Eclipse (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P., Smans, J.: Deadlock-free channels and locks. In: Gordon, A.D. (ed.) ESOP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6012, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11957-6_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. O’Hearn, P., Reynolds, J., Yang, H.: Local reasoning about programs that alter data structures. In: Fribourg, L. (ed.) CSL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2142, pp. 1–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi:10.1007/3-540-44802-0_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Owicki, S., Gries, D.: Verifying properties of parallel programs: an axiomatic approach. Commun. ACM 19(5), 279–285 (1976)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Putter, S., Wijs, A.: Verifying a verifier: on the formal correctness of an LTS transformation verification technique. In: Stevens, P., Wąsowski, A. (eds.) FASE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9633, pp. 383–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49665-7_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Rahim, L., Whittle, J.: A survey of approaches for verifying model transformations. Softw. Syst. Model. 14(2), 1003–1028 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Reynolds, J.C.: Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures. In: 17th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 55–74. IEEE (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Stenzel, K., Moebius, N., Reif, W.: Formal verification of QVT transformations for code generation. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 533–547. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24485-8_39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Tuerk, T.: A formalisation of smallfoot in HOL. In: Berghofer, S., Nipkow, T., Urban, C., Wenzel, M. (eds.) TPHOLs 2009. LNCS, vol. 5674, pp. 469–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03359-9_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Visser, W., Havelund, K., Brat, G., Park, S., Lerda, F.: Model checking programs. Autom. Softw. Eng. 10(2), 203–232 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wijs, A.: Define, verify, refine: correct composition and transformation of concurrent system semantics. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Liu, Z., Xue, J. (eds.) FACS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8348, pp. 348–368. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07602-7_21

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wijs, A., Engelen, L.: Efficient property preservation checking of model refinements. In: Piterman, N., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) TACAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7795, pp. 565–579. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36742-7_41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Wijs, A., Engelen, L.: REFINER: towards formal verification of model transformations. In: Badger, J.M., Rozier, K.Y. (eds.) NFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8430, pp. 258–263. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06200-6_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang, D., Bošnački, D., van den Brand, M., Engelen, L., Huizing, C., Kuiper, R., Wijs, A.: Towards verified java code generation from concurrent state machines. In: AMT. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1277, pp. 64–69. CEUR-WS.org (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang, D., Bošnački, D., van den Brand, M., Huizing, C., Jacobs, B., Kuiper, R., Wijs, A.: Verification of atomicity preservation in model-to-code transformations. In: Fourth International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD 2016), pp. 578–588. SCITEPRESS (2016)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands

    Dan Zhang, Dragan Bošnački, Mark van den Brand, Cornelis Huizing, Ruurd Kuiper & Anton Wijs

  2. KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Bart Jacobs

Authors
  1. Dan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dragan Bošnački
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark van den Brand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cornelis Huizing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bart Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ruurd Kuiper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anton Wijs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dragan Bošnački .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Université d’Angers/ESEO, Angers, France

    Slimane Hammoudi

  2. Faculty of EEMCS, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Luís Ferreira Pires

  3. Malina Software Corp., Nepean, Ontario, Canada

    Bran Selic

  4. SOFTEAM, Paris, France

    Philippe Desfray

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Zhang, D. et al. (2017). Verifying Atomicity Preservation and Deadlock Freedom of a Generic Shared Variable Mechanism Used in Model-To-Code Transformations. In: Hammoudi, S., Pires, L., Selic, B., Desfray, P. (eds) Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development. MODELSWARD 2016. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 692. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66302-9_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66302-9_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66301-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66302-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy