Breaking News
Comments
Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
pmetzger
User Rank
Author
Proving a program is error free
pmetzger   1/9/2014 7:15:07 PM
NO RATINGS
Our author asks: "but how can you actually prove that your design is error-free?"

The answer is it is difficult but possible. It requires the use of technologies people are generally not familiarized with, such as proof assistants -- prominent examples are Coq, Isabelle/HOL, and ACL2.

There exist, at this point, actual formally verified software artifacts of quite substantial complexity -- the seL4 microkernel, the CompCert C compiler, the Quark browser, and a number of others.

Sadly, very few people outside of academia are familiar with the existence of formal verification tools for software, and the documentation for such systems is (to say the least) non-transparent. The best tool at the moment, Coq, practically requires that its users learn quite a bit about Martin-Löf type theory in order to work effectively in it.

That said, such tools are clearly the way to deal with such things going forward.

Garcia-Lasheras
User Rank
Author
Mission: impossible
Garcia-Lasheras   1/9/2014 7:38:06 PM
NO RATINGS
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." --Brian Kernighan

Now, add a complex physical system interacting with the code under test and things become even worse... My first reaction is that you can "asymptotically" check the code of a system such as the one you describe, but the coverage will never be perfect -- no matter if you do it by hand or using an automated tool.

antedeluvian
User Rank
Author
Re: Proving a program is error free
antedeluvian   1/9/2014 7:40:46 PM
NO RATINGS
pmetzger

 It requires the use of technologies people are generally not familiarized with, such as proof assistants -- prominent examples are Coq, Isabelle/HOL, and ACL2.



FWIW I did a google search and came up with this book which looks like one place to start. As you say all the references look highly theoretical. Do you know of any practical courses on the subject (perhaps even at EE Live!).

alex_m1
User Rank
Author
few ideas
alex_m1   1/9/2014 7:47:19 PM
NO RATINGS
I reas good thing about haskell and spark pro for writing error free code.

http://leepike.wordpress.com/category/haskell/

http://www.adacore.com/sparkpro/

pmetzger
User Rank
Author
Re: Proving a program is error free
pmetzger   1/9/2014 8:13:44 PM
NO RATINGS
I'd recommend Coq at this point, rather than Isabelle.

The path to understanding how to use the tool for purposes like this is not, unfortunately, easy. Good examples of projects that have been formally verified using Coq would include CompCert (publications: http://compcert.inria.fr/publi.html ) and Quark ( http://goto.ucsd.edu/quark/ ) -- looking at them may give you some hint of what is possible and how difficult it might be.

Benjamin Pierce's "Software Foundations" ( http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/sf/ ) is probably a good place to get some background while simultaneously learning a bit of Coq. The book Certified Programming with Dependent Types ( http://adam.chlipala.net/cpdt/ ) intends to teach one specifically how to use Coq to write verified programs, but I caution it is not easy going. There is also a book on Coq itself called CoqArt ( http://www.labri.fr/perso/casteran/CoqArt/index.html ) that is not bad.

If this all makes it sound like this is Not An Easy Thing To Learn, that's because it isn't. The state of the art has advanced dramatically in 20 years, from the point where contemplating proving something as big as a compiler correct was impossible to the point where it is feasible for very dedicated PhD students to work on such a thing. However, productizing the work of the innovators in this field is something that has not yet happened. Documentation is sketchy, tools are difficult to use, and the level of complexity remains very high.

That said, it is in fact now feasible for smart people to do this stuff, and the result of formally verified programs is true assurance of correctness.

pmetzger
User Rank
Author
Re: few ideas
pmetzger   1/9/2014 8:15:59 PM
NO RATINGS
Languages like Haskell are very cool things, but they're not per se ways of producing formally verified code. To do that, you need to produce a statement of what your program is supposed to do in formal logic and then demonstrate that your program actually does it with something like a proof assistant -- not something Haskell or Spark ADA are designed for. That said, Haskell was used to produce the executable model against which the C code used in the seL4 project was validated.

alex_m1
User Rank
Author
Re: few ideas
alex_m1   1/10/2014 4:25:08 AM
NO RATINGS
The spark pro site do talk about formal proof. And it was used in a lunar orbiter project.SO maybe there's something usefull inside. 

pmetzger
User Rank
Author
Re: few ideas
pmetzger   1/10/2014 9:35:06 AM
NO RATINGS
Spark allows proof, but not (unfortunately) proof of arbitrary properties. You can prove some very limited properties, which is certainly useful, but it is not capable of creating something like seL4.

bernard.deadman
User Rank
Author
Re: few ideas
bernard.deadman   1/10/2014 12:00:57 PM
NO RATINGS
"you need to produce a statement of what your program is supposed to do in formal logic and then demonstrate that your program actually does it"

But it still doesn't prove the widget will do what you actually wanted it to do - only that the two models do the same thing under a (hopefully) more exhaustive set of conditions.

Which surely is the fundamental argument behind all current verification methodologies?

pmetzger
User Rank
Author
Re: few ideas
pmetzger   1/10/2014 12:24:06 PM
NO RATINGS
"But it still doesn't prove the widget will do what you actually wanted it to do - only that the two models do the same thing under a (hopefully) more exhaustive set of conditions" -- well, sort of.

It is true that you have to be able to explain in logic what you want the system to do, and the need for such specifications has often been held out as a reason that formal methods can never work. However, I think that's just sour grapes from the days when formal methods were *really* impractical twenty years ago. Not that long ago we *couldn't* actually prove significant systems correct, and so we convinced ourselves that even if we could we would never be able to figure out what properties we wanted proven correct anyway -- just like the fox and the grapes. In practice, I think people often overestimate how troublesome it is to produce a logical statement of the desired behavior vs. implementation.

Consider as a trivial example a sorting routine. The output is supposed to be a permutation of the input in which no element is larger than the next (or smaller than the next depending on sort direction). This is very compact to express in logic -- but there are dozens and dozens of algorithms that will do it, and expressing most of them is substantially more complicated than the correctness condition.

That said, doing things like producing the formal semantics for C to permit the statement of the correctness condition for CompCert was certainly a huge effort, and I don't want to claim that it is not a significant effort in many cases to produce a good statement in formal logic. What I'm trying to claim is that this problem is not, in fact, insurmountable.

Indeed, producing statements about correctness constraints in a safety critical system is often quite straightforward. In particular, the control problem described by the original article has safety conditions that are likely quite compactly described.

Page 1 / 3   >   >>


Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Radio
NEXT UPCOMING BROADCAST

What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Are the design challenges the same as with embedded systems, but with a little developer- and IT-skills added in? What do engineers need to know? Rick Merritt talks with two experts about the tools and best options for designing IoT devices in 2016. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.
Like Us on Facebook
Special Video Section
LED lighting is an important feature in today’s and future ...
05:27
The LT8602 has two high voltage buck regulators with an ...
05:18
Silego Technology’s highly versatile Mixed-signal GreenPAK ...
The quality and reliability of Mill-Max's two-piece ...
01:34
Why the multicopter? It has every thing in it. 58 of ...
Security is important in all parts of the IoT chain, ...
Infineon explains their philosophy and why the multicopter ...
The LTC4282 Hot SwapTM controller allows a board to be ...
This video highlights the Zynq® UltraScale+™ MPSoC, and sho...
Homeowners may soon be able to store the energy generated ...
The LTC®6363 is a low power, low noise, fully differential ...
See the Virtex® UltraScale+™ FPGA with 32.75G backplane ...
Vincent Ching, applications engineer at Avago Technologies, ...
The LT®6375 is a unity-gain difference amplifier which ...
The LTC®4015 is a complete synchronous buck controller/ ...
10:35
The LTC®2983 measures a wide variety of temperature sensors ...
The LTC®3886 is a dual PolyPhase DC/DC synchronous ...
The LTC®2348-18 is an 18-bit, low noise 8-channel ...
The LT®3042 is a high performance low dropout linear ...