Specification Enforcing Refinement for Convertibility Verification

Protocol conversion deals with the automatic synthesis of anadditional component, often referred to as an adaptor or aconverter, to bridge mismatches between interactingcomponents, often referred to as protocols. A formalsolution, called convertibility verification, has been recentlyproposed, which produces such a converter, so that the parallelcomposition of the protocols and the converter also satisfies somedesired specification. A converter is responsible for bridgingdifferent kinds of mismatches such as control, data,and clock mismatches. Mismatches are usually removed by theconverter by disabling undesirable paths in the protocolcomposition (similar to controllers in supervisory control ofDiscrete Event Systems (DES)).We generalize this convertibility verification problem by using anew refinement called specification enforcing refinement (SER)between a protocol composition and a desired specification. Theexistence of such a refinement is shown to be a necessary andsufficient condition for the existence of a suitable converter. Wealso synthesize automatically the converter if a SER refinementrelation exists. The proposed converter is capable of the usualdisabling actions to remove undesirable paths in the protocolcomposition. In addition, the converter can perform forcing actions when disabling alone fails to find a converter to satisfythe desired specification. Forcing allows the generation of controlinputs in one protocol that are not provided by the otherprotocol. Forcing induces state-based hiding, an operationnot achievable using DES control theory.

[1]  Steven I. Marcus,et al.  Protocol conversion using supervisory control techniques , 1996, Proceedings of Joint Conference on Control Applications Intelligent Control and Computer Aided Control System Design.

[2]  Mark R. Greenstreet,et al.  Formal verification in hardware design: a survey , 1999, TODE.

[3]  Robin Milner,et al.  Communication and concurrency , 1989, PHI Series in computer science.

[4]  Samik Basu,et al.  A Module Checking Based Converter Synthesis Approach for SoCs , 2008, 21st International Conference on VLSI Design (VLSID 2008).

[5]  Zoran A. Salcic,et al.  Multi-clock Soc design using protocol conversion , 2009, 2009 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition.

[6]  Arcot Sowmya,et al.  Synchronous protocol automata: a framework for modelling and verification of SoC communication architectures , 2004, Proceedings Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition.

[7]  Martín Abadi,et al.  The existence of refinement mappings , 1988, [1988] Proceedings. Third Annual Information Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[8]  W. M. Wonham,et al.  The control of discrete event systems , 1989 .

[9]  Daniel Gajski,et al.  Interfacing Incompatible Protocols Using Interface Process Generation , 1995, 32nd Design Automation Conference.

[10]  Gaetano Borriello.  A New Interface Specification Methodology and , 1988 .

[11]  Niels Maretti.  Mechanized Verification of Refinement , 1994, TPCD.

[12]  Arcot Sowmya,et al.  Forced simulation: A technique for automating component reuse in embedded systems , 2001, TODE.

[13]  Grant Martin,et al.  Surviving the SOC Revolution: A Guide to Platform-Based Design , 1999 .

[14]  Rance Cleaveland,et al.  Tableau-based model checking in the propositional mu-calculus , 1990, Acta Informatica.

[15]  Pascal Fradet,et al.  Adaptor Synthesis for Real-Time Components , 2007, TACAS.

[16]  Nicolas Halbwachs,et al.  Synchronous Programming of Reactive Systems , 1992, CAV.

[17]  Alberto L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli,et al.  Convertibility verification and converter synthesis: two faces of the same coin , 2002, ICCAD 2002.

[18]  Simon S. Lam.  Protocol Conversion , 1988, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..