ExplainHoudini: Making Houdini Inference Transparent

Houdini is a simple yet scalable technique for annotation inference for modular contract checking. The input to Houdini is a set of candidate annotations, and the output is a consistent subset of these candidates. Since this technique is most useful as an annotation assistant for user-guided refinement of annotations, understanding the reason for the removal of annotations is crucial for a user to refine the set of annotations, and classify false errors easily. This is especially true for applying Houdini to large legacy modules with thousands of procedures and deep call chains. In this work we present a method ExplainHoudini that explains the reason why a given candidate was removed, purely in terms of the existing candidates. We have implemented this algorithm and provide preliminary experience of applying it on large modules.

[1]  Simon L. Peyton Jones,et al.  Imperative functional programming , 1993, POPL '93.

[2]  Rupak Majumdar,et al.  Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems , 1997, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[3]  Bor-Yuh Evan Chang,et al.  Boogie: A Modular Reusable Verifier for Object-Oriented Programs , 2005, FMCO.

[4]  Patrick Cousot,et al.  Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints , 1977, POPL.

[5]  Shuvendu K. Lahiri,et al.  Unifying type checking and property checking for low-level code , 2009, POPL '09.

[6]  Shuvendu K. Lahiri,et al.  Complexity and Algorithms for Monomial and Clausal Predicate Abstraction , 2009, CADE.

[7]  Greg Nelson,et al.  Extended static checking for Java , 2002, PLDI '02.

[8]  K. Rustan M. Leino,et al.  Houdini, an Annotation Assistant for ESC/Java , 2001, FME.

[9]  Frank D. Valencia,et al.  Formal Methods for Components and Objects , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[10]  Wolfram Schulte,et al.  VCC: Contract-based modular verification of concurrent C , 2009, 2009 31st International Conference on Software Engineering - Companion Volume.

[11]  Kenneth L. McMillan,et al.  Interpolation and SAT-Based Model Checking , 2003, CAV.

[12]  Thomas Wies,et al.  Intra-module Inference , 2009, CAV.

[13]  Todd D. Millstein,et al.  Generating error traces from verification-condition counterexamples , 2005, Sci. Comput. Program..

[14]  Stephen Gilmore,et al.  Mobile Resource Guarantees for Smart Devices , 2004, CASSIS.

[15]  Shuvendu K. Lahiri,et al.  Towards Scalable Modular Checking of User-Defined Properties , 2010, VSTTE.

[16]  José Nuno Oliveira,et al.  FME 2001: Formal Methods for Increasing Software Productivity , 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[17]  Renate A. Schmidt.  Automated Deduction - CADE-22, 22nd International Conference on Automated Deduction, Montreal, Canada, August 2-7, 2009. Proceedings , 2009, CADE.

[18]  Rajeev Alur,et al.  A Temporal Logic of Nested Calls and Returns , 2004, TACAS.

[19]  K. Rustan M. Leino,et al.  The Spec# Programming System: An Overview , 2004, CASSIS.

[20]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Abstractions from proofs , 2004, POPL.

[21]  Hassen Saïdi,et al.  Construction of Abstract State Graphs with PVS , 1997, CAV.

[22]  Nikolaj Bjørner,et al.  Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver , 2008, TACAS.