1 An Inheritance-Based Technique for Building Simulation Proofs Incrementally Idit Keidar, Roger Khazan, Nancy Lynch, Alex Shvartsman MIT Lab for Computer.

1

An Inheritance-Based Technique for Building Simulation Proofs

Incrementally

Idit Keidar, Roger Khazan, Nancy Lynch, Alex Shvartsman

MIT Lab for Computer Science

Theory of Distributed Systems Group

2

State of the Art Software Engineering

• Managing complexity of software systems– Modularity: interacting system components– Incremental techniques: OO, inheritance

• Formal modeling and verification– Modularity: compositional theorems– Incremental techniques: lag behind Limited scalability Not sufficiently cost-effective

3

Our Work:Scalable Formal Methods

• Provide incremental techniques for– Specifying systems– Modeling systems– Reusing formal proofs about systems

• Evolved as part of our experience modeling complex group communication service– Middleware with intricate semantics– Implemented in C++– [Keidar, Khazan, ICDCS 2000]

4

Talk OutlineMotivation: need formal framework for incremental

proofs• The approach, in a nutshell• Background: specifications, simulation proofs• The challenge: reuse simulation proofs• The solution

– Modification constructs

– Proof reuse theorem

• Experience using the technique• Summary

5

Our Approach,in a Nutshell

6

The Idea

OOSWE

Techniques

Formal Modelingand Verification

Techniques

Incremental Specification, Modeling, and Proof Reuse

Techniques

7

Inheritance• Incremental modification of components• Many different kinds. We consider: 1 Specialization (sub-typing, substitution)

– Child constraints parent behavior– E.g., Parent is unordered messaging protocol;

Child specializes Parent to ordered messaging

2 Interface extension – Together with specialization allows new

behavior, but does not override parent behavior (“sub-classing for extension”)

8

Inheritance in Spec and Proofs

SpecificationS

SystemA

Implements

SpecificationS’

parent

SystemA’

parent

?!Prove that A’ implements S’ by relying on proof that A implements S, but without repeating reasoning of that proof.

9

Background:Specifications and Proofs

10

Specifying and Modeling System

• Abstract state machines [Lampson; Schneider ’93]

– States (named variables)

– Actions

– Specify in which states each action is enabled and how it modifies state

– Some actions are externally observable

– State is not externally observable

• Execution: “state, action, state, action, …”• Defined behavior: all possible sequences of

externally observable actions Traces

11

Example -- Monotonic SequenceSpecification UpSeqState: Integer last, init anyActions:

print(x) pre: x last

eff: last:= x

• Sample Traces: – 1, 3, 4, …– -10, -5, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, …

12

What “Implements” Means?

• System A implements specification S if every trace of A is a trace of S

“Implements” “trace inclusion”

• A is indistinguishable from S by looking only at A’s traces

13

Example -- Fib SequenceSystem FibSeqState: Integer n=0,m=1Actions:

print(x) pre: x == n + m

eff: n := mm := x

• Trace: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, …– is also trace of monotonic sequence UpSeq

14

Proving that A Implements S

• Simulation mapping / abstraction function F : {the states of A} {the states of S}F maps initial states of A to initial states of SFor every action of A and for every state t,

if (t, , t’) is a step of A then there is a sequence of actions of S

thatstarts in F(t), ends in F(t’), and has the same trace as .

• Simulation Mapping Trace Inclusion

15

F(t) F(t’)Action

F F

t t’Action

SpecS:

SystemA:

pre(S.) holds whenever pre(A.) holdsState of A after eff(A.) is executed maps into

state of S after eff(S.), assuming pre-states map

of A Simulates of S:

16

FibSeq Implements UpSeq

UpSeq.print(x)pre: xlasteff: last:=x

FibSeq.print(x)pre: x==n+meff: n:=m

m:=x

last:=mF

For simulation proof, need to show: pre(FibSeq.print(x))pre(UpSeq.print(x)) (x=n+m)(xlast=m); relies on n0 last still equals m in post-state

17

Simulation Proofs -- Benefits

• Complete [e.g., Abadi and Lamport ‘93]

– Any finite trace inclusion can be shown

• Tractable– Inductive reasoning– Reason about single steps, not about executions

• Verifiable by humans and/or machines

18

The Challenge:Reuse of Simulation Proofs

19

Our Proof Reuse GoalSpecification

S

SpecificationS’

SystemA

SystemA’

Simulates

Parent Parent

?!

A formal framework – for proving that A’ simulates S’

– without repeating parent’s proof.

20

Why Not Immediate

Traces of STraces of A

Traces of A’

Traces of S’Traces of S’Traces of S’

21

The Solution:Formal Framework for

Incremental Specifications and Simulation Proofs

22

What We Did

• Specialization and interface extensionfor specifying and modeling systems

• “Proof Reuse” Theorem– Defines simulation between children– Reuses and extends simulation between parents– Requires proving conditions about extension– Involves reasoning only about modifications

23

Specialization Construct

• In precondition-effect notation, child can– Introduce new state variables– Restrict parent actions with new preconditions– Add new effects that modify new variables only

A’ = specialize(A)(NewVars, ActionRestriction)

• Child may only restrict parent behavior

24

Recall: Monotonic SequenceSpecification UpSeqState: Integer last, init anyActions:

print(x) pre: x last

eff: last:= x

• Sample Traces: – 1, 3, 4, …– -10, -5, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, …

25

Specialization of UpSeq: Accelerating Sequence, “Guiness”Specification GnSeqspecializes UpSeq

New State: Integer diff, init any

Action Restriction:print(x) new pre: x-last diff new eff: diff:= x-last

• Sample Trace: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, …– also trace of UpSeq

26

Using “Proof Reuse” Theorem• In order to show simulation from A’ to S’:

• Extend simulation mapping F from A to S with mapping F’from states of A’ to new variables of S’

• Reason only about how S’ restricts S:1. new preconditions are enabled; and2. mapping F’ is preserved after new effects occur

Allows to reuse F and simulation proof of F

27

Example

UpSeq

GnSeq

FibSeqSimulates

Specializes

F

FibSeq?!F’

28

FibSeq Implements GnSeq

UpSeq.print(x) pre: xlast

eff: last:=x

FibSeq.print(x)pre: x==n+meff: n:=m

m:=x

GnSeq.print(x)

pre: x-lastdiff eff: diff:=x-last

last:=mdiff:=m-n

For simulation proof, need to show : pre(FibSeq.print(x)) newpre(GnSeq.print(x)) (x=n+m)(x-last diff) diff still equals m-n in post-state

29

Experience: Using the Technique

30

Group Communication

• Powerful building blocks for fault tolerant distributed systems

• Reliable multicast to groups• Group membership “who is in the group”• Virtual Synchrony semantics synchronize

messages and membership changes– Processes see events in same order

• Formal specification, modeling, and verification: a challenge

31

Keidar and Khazan, ICDCS 2000

• Modeling a full-fledged group communication service– Specification– Algorithm description, matching C++

implementation (9,000 lines)– Environment specification matching services we

use (developed by other teams): • membership server (20,000 lines)

• reliable communication service (4,000 lines)

– Simulation proof from algorithm to spec

32

Incremental Specification, Algorithm and Proof

• FIFO communication in views– Algorithm: half page– Proof 1: 5 pp., 7 major invariants, history vars

• Virtual Synchrony + Transitional Set– Algorithm modification: full page– Proof 2: 2.5 pp., 1 invariant– Proof 3: 2.5 pp., 3 invariants, prophecy vars

• Self Delivery– Proof 4: 2.5 pp., 3 invariants

33

A Modeling Methodology• Child cannot write to parent data structures

• Sometimes need hooks at parent for potential children to specify policy– Non-determinism at parent– Parent specifies coherence, safety– Like “abstract” or “virtual” methods

• Example: forwarding of messages to others– At parent arbitrary forwarding, but forwarded

messages go into “right” place– Child specifies forwarding policy

34

Benefits of Reuse

• Present complex algorithm step by step– Easy to see which part of algorithm

corresponds to which part of spec– Efficient: re-use of data structures (as opposed

to compositional layered approach)

• Manageable proof – Focus attention on specific property– No need to re-prove that previous proof

preserves (contrast with layers)

35

Summary of Contributions• Formal framework for incremental

development of specs & simulation proofs• Child simulation proof may reuse parent

proof – involves reasoning only about modified parts

• Successfully used to model and validate complex communication system [ICDCS 00]

• Formalism extends IOA programming and modeling language [Garland&Lynch]

• Suitable for other state-machine models

36

The End