Auxiliary state machines + context-triggered properties in verification

Formal specifications of interface protocols between a design-under-test and its environment mostly consist of two types of correctness requirements, namely (a) a set of invariants that applies throughout the protocol execution and (b) a set of context-triggered properties that applies only when the protocol state belongs to a specific set of contexts. To model such requirements, an increasingly popular design choice in the assertion IP design community has been the use of abstract context state machines and state-oriented properties. In this paper, we formalize this modeling style and present algorithms for verifying such specifications. Specifically, we present a purely formal approach and a semi-formal approach for verifying such specifications. We demonstrate the use of this design style in modeling some of the industry standard protocol descriptions and present encouraging results.

[1]  Armin Biere,et al.  Symbolic Model Checking without BDDs , 1999, TACAS.

[2]  David L. Dill,et al.  Counterexample-guided choice of projections in approximate symbolic model checking , 2000, IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design. ICCAD - 2000. IEEE/ACM Digest of Technical Papers (Cat. No.00CH37140).

[3]  Pallab Dasgupta,et al.  A Roadmap for Formal Property Verification , 2006 .

[4]  Fred Kröger,et al.  Temporal Logic of Programs , 1987, EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science.

[5]  Moshe Y. Vardi,et al.  GSTE is partitioned model checking , 2004, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[6]  E.M. Clarke,et al.  Verifying IP-core based system-on-chip designs , 1999, Twelfth Annual IEEE International ASIC/SOC Conference (Cat. No.99TH8454).

[7]  Amir Pnueli,et al.  The temporal logic of programs , 1977, 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1977).

[8]  Enrico Macii,et al.  Algorithms for Approximate FSM Traversal , 1993, 30th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference.

[9]  David L. Dill,et al.  A Specification Methodology by a Collection of Compact Properties as Applied to the Intel® ItaniumTM Processor Bus Protocol , 2001, CHARME.

[10]  Markus Wedler,et al.  Transition-by-transition FSM traversal for reachability analysis in bounded model checking , 2005, ICCAD-2005. IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, 2005..

[11]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Representing circuits more efficiently in symbolic model checking , 1991, 28th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference.

[12]  Alan J. Hu,et al.  Monitor-Based Formal Specification of PCI , 2000, FMCAD.

[13]  Tiziano Villa,et al.  VIS: A System for Verification and Synthesis , 1996, CAV.

[14]  Carl-Johan H. Seger,et al.  Introduction to generalized symbolic trajectory evaluation , 2003, IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst..

[15]  Carl Pixley,et al.  Design Constraints in Symbolic Model Checking , 1998, CAV.

[16]  Alan J. Hu.  Distance-Guided Hybrid Verification with GUIDO , 2006, 2006 IEEE International High Level Design Validation and Test Workshop.

[17]  Egon Börger,et al.  Abstract State Machines. A Method for High-Level System Design and Analysis , 2003 .