Applying hardware verification techniques to software

October 1, 2008 OpenSystems Media

Confirming design criteria

When designing digital circuits, hardware engineers routinely use verification tools to prove that their designs meet the necessary specifications. The most widely used technique, model checking, is considered to be a highly effective verification technology, as evidenced by the Association for Computing Machinery's conferral of the 2007 A.M. Turing Award to Clarke, Emerson, and Sifakis for their pioneering work on the subject in the early 1980s.

Model checking is a verification technique, meaning that it is a mathematically sound method of proving that a given property holds for the design. Roughly speaking, it works as follows: A description of the circuit is taken as input. This is the model, which is expressed in a Hardware Description Language (HDL) such as Verilog or VHDL. The user then specifies a property that must hold for the circuit, such as, "The cruise-control state must never be true if the brake signal input is true." The model checker explores all possible states of the model, and if the property is not violated, the result constitutes a proof of nonviolation. If not, the model checker provides a counter example that shows the sequence of state changes that led to the violation. Figure 1 illustrates this process.

Figure 1

Of course, model checking involves much more than this simple description suggests. The main problem is state explosion – the number of states is so huge that it is impossible to check all states concretely. Many researchers have devised ingenious methods to deal with this issue, enabling engineers to check models with up to about 10100 states.

The most significant of these methods is using symbolic representations to avoid explicit instantiation of all the states. Another important technique is using abstractions, which entails abstract symbols that correspond to many concrete states. The disadvantage of abstractions is that they can lead to false positives, which are reported errors that do not really exist. Figure 2 shows an example abstraction of a concrete state and a possible symbolic representation of the state.

Figure 2

The properties to be checked are usually specified in a form of temporal logic. This allows the properties to be specified in terms of sequences, such as, "If state S0 holds, then eventually state S1 will become true", meaning that sophisticated properties can be checked.

Hardware vs. software verification

Model checking is so useful for hardware that researchers have tried formulating ways to apply it to software systems as well. The potential to prove programs correct is the holy grail of formal methods. Although hardware descriptions and software programs share some characteristics, key differences make it challenging to apply model-checking techniques to software.

First, whereas hardware descriptions are finite state, most software is unbounded state. In hardware, designers can't just materialize new bits in which to store data. In software, developers do this all the time with dynamically allocated memory and the program stack. Even when software is finite state, the state space for a nontrivial program tends to be enormous, so much wider abstractions are needed to summarize the state space.

Second, hardware designs are generally closed. Everything that needs to be known about the state of the hardware is provided in the specification written in HDL. This is rarely the case with software, considering that almost all programs use third-party libraries or make calls to an operating system that can affect the state of the system.

Finally, with hardware, a high-fidelity model can be derived directly from the HDL specification. With software, this task is not so simple. Most modern programming languages are underspecified and riddled with ambiguities that are usually left for the compiler to resolve. Thus, creating a precise model requires knowing exactly how the compiler works, which is typically not feasible. It is possible to derive a model automatically from a program written in a mainstream programming language, but there are too many unknowns to create a high-fidelity model for software in the same way as can be done for hardware.

The key question with software is how to generate an accurate model at the right level of abstraction. An abstraction is a simplification of the program that must be chosen to model properties of interest. To be correct, any property that holds for the state of the original program must hold for the abstraction as well. If an abstraction is very coarse, developers only need to consider a small number of states for the model-checking algorithms to scale well, but this introduces the risk of false positives. If it is very fine, that risk is reduced but at the expense of efficiency and scalability. Model-checking tools attempt to balance these competing concerns. The abstractions that make sense for software typically model the control flow of the program but have fairly coarse abstractions for the values of variables.

Models and abstractions that fail to capture important program semantics are referred to as incomplete or unsound. A model checker based on an unsound model might fail to find some errors.

Model-checking achievements in software

Despite these differences, model-checking techniques are successfully applied to software development, and their use is growing. One approach is to use model-checking techniques to prove the properties of a subset of the program's functionality. For example, the SPIN model checker was designed to find protocol errors in distributed systems[1]. With SPIN, the input specification is written in a specially designed language named PROMELA. One of the challenges involved in using model checkers is creating the model. If possible, developers should automatically extract the model from the code, which is much faster and less error-prone than deriving it manually.

Another approach is to use model checking for a specific domain. At Microsoft, the Static Driver Verifier (SDV) uses model-checking techniques to find bugs in device drivers. Device drivers are notoriously difficult to write and debug and have a profound impact on system reliability. In one 2003 study, researchers discovered that bugs in device drivers caused 85 percent of system crashes in Windows XP. SDV, which works by confirming that the code uses the driver API correctly, has proven capable of finding subtle errors (75-80 percent of which were genuine problems) in device drivers that went through significant testing and were considered high quality[2].

SDV uses a model-checking technique called SLAM, which creates a model by taking the original C code for the driver and constructing a finite state Boolean program for it. This is an abstraction wherein the control flow is preserved but all the variables are modeled as Boolean values. The model checker then operates on that model to try and determine if the model violates any of several dozen API usage rules.

SLAM uses an important technique called abstraction refinement that, upon detecting a violation, changes the model to make it more precise on the path that leads to the violation. The improved model then checks once more for the violation, allowing it to eliminate false positives. This three-part process is repeated until the violation is confirmed or there is a proof that it cannot occur.

Model checking is also used to verify properties of concurrent programs, such as absence of deadlock. The Java PathFinder project exemplifies this approach[3].

New static analysis tools emerge

Despite the success of model checking in these limited domains, general-purpose program verification for medium-scale programs remains impractical. However, verification is a lofty ambition, and many programmers would be satisfied with tools that can find some of the bugs in their code, even if they cannot prove that their programs are completely bug-free.

This need has given rise to a new breed of advanced static analysis tools, such as GrammaTech's CodeSonar. These tools use techniques similar to model checkers by creating models that are abstractions of the program and then exploring execution paths in the same way that model checkers explore program states. However, unlike true model checking, the model construction is incomplete, meaning that these tools might fail to detect some flaws.

Although this compromises the principle of verification, these tools have proven effective at finding real and serious problems. They work directly on the code, are easy to adopt, require no changes to the build system, scale to millions of lines of real-world code, and complete their analysis in a relatively short amount of time. In addition to these benefits, advanced static analysis tools typically populate a central database with their results and provide groupware that allows large groups to collaborate on resolving problems.

As demonstrated by engineering research, model checking is a powerful tool that has yielded significant improvements in hardware reliability. Though the nature of software makes it difficult to use model checking in the exact same way, it is suitable in special circumstances[4]. For general-purpose software, new static analysis tools are using similar techniques to find programming flaws.


[1] Holzmann, G.J., The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. 2003, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Professional. 608.

[2] Ball, T., Bounimova, E., Cook, B., Levin, V., Lichtenberg, J., McGarvey, C., Ondrusek, B., Rajamani, S., and Ustuner, A., "Thorough Static Analysis of Device Drivers." In EuroSys 2006. Leuven, Belgium.

[3] Java PathFinder,     

[4] Mansouri-Samani, M., Mehlitz, P.C., Pasareanu, C.S., Penix, J.J., Brat, G.P., Markosian, L.Z., O'Malley, O., Pressburger, T.T., and Visser, W.C., Program Model Checking Practitioner's Guide,

Paul Anderson is VP of engineering at GrammaTech, an Ithaca, New York-based spin-off of Cornell University. Paul manages GrammaTech's engineering team and is the architect of the company's static analysis tools. He has worked in the software industry for 16 years, helping organizations including NASA, the FDA, the FAA, MITRE, Draper Laboratory, GE, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing apply automated code analysis to critical projects. His research on static analysis tools and techniques has been reported in numerous articles, journal publications, book chapters, and international conferences. Paul received his BSc from Kings College, University of London, and his PhD in Computer Science from City University London.

GrammaTech, Inc.

Paul Anderson (GrammaTech)
Previous Article
Hybrid silicon tuners help TVs kick the CAN
Hybrid silicon tuners help TVs kick the CAN

TV manufacturers must switch to different tuner architectures to meet evolving consumer and technical demands.

Next Article
Why automation has failed in the past
Why automation has failed in the past

To help ensure a successful automation strategy now and in the future, test organizations need to take a cr...