When people review or test code, they often miss important edge cases. Our research allows our tools to exhaustively explore all executions of the code. We use a technique called bounded model checking to turn the tested code into a mathematical formula. The formula is then passed to a mathematical solver that uses advanced heuristics to find a solution. We then use the solution to synthesise a test that can be included in the test suite.
The biggest research challenge in this area is being able to create efficient translation from the program to a formula. Our researchers deal with problems such as optimal encoding of data types, automated pruning of code not relevant for the test, or inferring invariants for complex program loops.
Read our published work
Successful Use of Incremental BMC in the Automotive Industry by Peter Schrammel, Daniel Kroening, Martin Brain, Ruben Martins, Tino Teige, Tom Bienmüller
Program analysis is on the brink of mainstream usage in embedded systems development. Formal verification of behavioural requirements, finding runtime errors and automated test case generation are some of the most common applications of automated verification tools based on Bounded Model Checking (BMC). Existing industrial tools for embedded software use an off-the-shelf Bounded Model Checker and apply it iteratively to verify the program with an increasing number of unwindings. This approach unnecessarily wastes time repeating work that has already been done and fails to exploit the power of incremental SAT solving. This paper reports on the extension of the software model checker Cbmc to support incremental BMC and its successful integration with the industrial embedded software verification tool BTC EmbeddedTester. We present an extensive evaluation over large industrial embedded programs, mainly from automotive industry. We show that incremental BMC cuts runtimes by one order of magnitude in comparison to the standard non-incremental approach, enabling the application of formal verification to large and complex embedded software.
Existing heap analysis techniques lack the ability to supply counterexamples in case of property violations. This hinders diagnosis, prevents test-case generation and is a barrier to the use of these tools among non-experts. We present a verification technique for reasoning about aliasing and reachability in the heap which uses ACDCL (a combination of the well-known CDCL SAT algorithm and abstract interpretation) to perform interleaved proof generation and model construction. Abstraction provides us with a tractable way of reasoning about heaps; ACDCL adds the ability to search for a model in an efficient way. We present a prototype tool and demonstrate a number of examples for which we are able to obtain useful concrete counterexamples.
We present a tool for the formal verification of ANSI-C programs using Bounded Model Checking (BMC). The emphasis is on usability: the tool supports almost all ANSI-C language features, including pointer constructs, dynamic memory allocation, recursion, and the float and double data types. From the perspective of the user, the verification is highly automated: the only input required is the BMC bound. The tool is integrated into a graphical user interface. This is essential for presenting long counterexample traces: the tool allows stepping through the trace in the same way a debugger allows stepping through a program.
Testing of reactive systems is challenging because long input sequences are often needed to drive them into a state to test a desired feature. This is particularly problematic in on-target testing, where a system is tested in its real-life application environment and the amount of time required for resetting is high. This article presents an approach to discovering a test case chain—a single software execution that covers a group of test goals and minimizes overall test execution time. Our technique targets the scenario in which test goals for the requirements are given as safety properties. We give conditions for the existence and minimality of a single test case chain and minimize the number of test case chains if a single test case chain is infeasible. We report experimental results with our ChainCover tool for C code generated from Simulink models and compare it to state-of-the-art test suite generators.