87 entries tagged with #GUI
Ever wanted to understand why program proof is not as easy as telling ChatGPT "can you prove that program <code>stuff</code> is correct for me?" A new book from top-notch programmer and program proof expert Rustan Leino answers all your questions. Or at least a good batch.
This week we announced a new tool called RecordFlux. The goal of RecordFlux is to address one of the most critical parts of the software stack in terms of security, binary protocol parsers/serializers.From a protocol specification written in the RecordFlux Domain Specific Language (DSL), the tool can generate provable SPARK code. This means memory safety (no buffer overruns), absence of integer overflow errors, and even proof of functional properties. In this blog post I will try to explain how this is a game changer for cybersecurity.
This blog describes the concept and benefits of differential fuzz testing. In addition, the post describes setting up, executing and analyzing the results of a differential fuzzing campaign for the Libkeccak and XKCP cryptographic libraries.
Fuzzing Out Bugs in Safety-Critical Embedded Software: Paul Butcher from AdaCore talks to Brandon Lewis from Embedded Toolbox
We are pleased to announce the publication of the initial draft of the Ferrocene Language Specification (FLS) - a qualification-oriented document that details the Rust language as it specifically relates to Ferrocene.
A retrospective on learning Ada and developing a tool with it in 2021 from 2021 Ada Crate of the Year Winner Paul Jarrett.
The GNAT light runtime library is a version of the runtime library targeted at embedded platforms and certification, which has been certified for use at the highest levels of criticality in several industrial domains. It contains around 180 units focused mostly on I/O, numerics, text manipulation, memory operations. We have used SPARK to prove the correctness of 40 of them: that the code is free of runtime errors, and that it satisfies its functional specifications.
Through the HICLASS UK research group, AdaCore has been developing security-focused software development tools that are aligned with the objectives stated within the avionics security standards. In addition, they have been developing further guidelines that describe how vulnerability identification and security assurance activities can be described within a Plan for Security Aspects of Certification.
A couple years ago I started to tackle what was probably my most daunting project at the time, an embedded USB Device stack written 100% in Ada.
A few days ago, someone asked on the Ada Drivers Library repository how to add support for the SAMD21 micro-controller. Nowadays, I would rather recommend people to contribute this kind of micro-controller support project to the Alire ecosystem. I started to write a few instructions on how to get started, but it quickly became a blog-worthy piece of text.
Part of AdaCore's ongoing efforts under the HICLASS project is to demonstrate how the SPARK technology can play an integral part in the security-hardening of existing software libraries written in other non-security-oriented programming languages such as C. This blog post presents the first white paper under this work-stream, “Security-Hardening Software Libraries with Ada and SPARK”.
Women make up roughly 38% of the global workforce, yet they constitute only 10–20% of the engineering workforce. In the U.S., numbers suggest that 40% of women who graduate with engineering degrees never enter the profession or eventually leave it. Why? The reasons vary but primarily involve socio-economic constraints on women in general, workplace inequities, and lack of support for work-life balance. Sadly, history itself has often failed to properly acknowledge the instrumental contributions of women inventors, scientists, and mathematicians who have helped solve some of our world's toughest challenges. How can young women emulate their successes if they don't even know about them?
Following my last blog entry, further experiments show how the performance of SPARKNaCl can be doubled (again), plus analysis of worst-case stack usage and code size at all optimization levels.
Some of you may recall an AdaCore blog post written in 2017 by Thales engineer Lionel Matias titled "Leveraging Ada Run-Time Checks with Fuzz Testing in AFL". This insightful post took us on a journey of discovery as Lionel demonstrated how Ada programs, compiled using GNAT Pro and an adapted assembler pass can be subjected to advanced fuzz testing. In order to achieve this Lionel demonstrated how instrumentation of the generated assembly code around jump and label instructions, could be subjected to grey-box (path aware) fuzz testing (using the original AFL v2.52b as the fuzz engine). Lionel explained how applying the comprehensive spectrum of Ada runtime checks, in conjunction with Ada's strong typing and contract based programming, enhanced the capabilities of fuzz testing beyond the abilities of other languages. Ada's advanced runtime checking, for exceptions like overflows, and the scrutiny of Ada's design by contract assertions allow corner case bugs to be found whilst also utilising fuzz testing to verify functional correctness.
The AFT (Autonomous FireTruck) is a prototype of an autonomous firetruck that can put out fire without risking people's lives. This project won a finalist prize in the Make with Ada 2019/20 competition.
Guillermo Perez's project won a finalist prize in the Make with Ada 2019/20 competition. This project was originally posted on Hackster.io here. For those interested in participating in the 2020/21 competition, registration is now open and project submissions will be accepted until Jan 31st 2021, register here.
Blaine Osepchuk's project won a finalist prize in the Make with Ada 2019/20 competition. This project was originally posted on Hackster.io here. For those interested in participating in the 2020/21 competition, registration is now open and project submissions will be accepted until Jan 31st 2021, register here.
SPARK always being under development, new language features make it in every release of the tool, be they previously unsupported Ada features (like access types) or SPARK specific developments. However, new features generally take a while to make it into actual user code. The feature I am going to present here is in my experience an exception, as it was used both internally and by external users before it made it into any actual release. It was designed to enhance the verification of data initialization, whose limitations have been a long standing issue in SPARK.
Shahariar's project ensures safety against electrical fire or shock during an earthquake, flood, gas leakage or fire breakout by disconnecting the mains with a smart circuit breaker. Additionally, this project won a finalist prize in the 2019/20 Make with Ada competition.
Last year, I started evaluating programming languages for a formally-verified operating system. I've been developing software for a while, but only recently began work in high integrity software development and formal methods. There are several operating system projects, like the SeL4 microkernel and the Muen separation kernel, that make use of formal verification. But I was interested in using a formally-verified language to write a general-purpose OS - an environment for abstracting the underlying hardware while acting as an arbiter for running the normal applications we're used to.
This blog entry describes the transformation of an Ada stack ADT into a completely proven SPARK implementation that relies on static verification instead of run-time enforcement of the abstraction’s semantics. We will prove that there are no reads of unassigned variables, no array indexing errors, no range errors, no numeric overflow errors, no attempts to push onto a full stack, no attempts to pop from an empty stack, that subprogram bodies implement their functional requirements, and so on. As a result, we get a maximally robust implementation of a reusable stack abstraction providing all the facilities required for production use.
For nearly four decades the Ada language (in all versions of the standard) has been helping developers meet the most stringent reliability, safety and security requirements in the embedded market. As such, Ada has become an entrenched player in its historic A&D niche, where its technical advantages are recognized and well understood. Ada has also seen usage in other domains (such as medical and transportation) but its penetration has progressed at a somewhat slower pace. In these other markets Ada stands in particular contrast with the C language, which, although suffering from extremely well known and documented flaws, remains a strong and seldom questioned default choice. Or at least, when it’s not the choice, C is still the starting point (a gateway drug?) for alternatives such as C++ or Java, which in the end still lack the software engineering benefits that Ada embodies..
What's changed?In 2019 AdaCore created a UK business unit and embarked on a new and collaborative venture researching and developing advanced UK aerospace systems. This blog introduces the reader to ‘HICLASS’, describes our involvement and explains how participation in this project is aligned with AdaCore’s core values.
The functionality of many security-critical programs is directly related to Input/Output (I/O). This includes command-line utilities such as gzip, which might process untrusted data downloaded from the internet, but also any servers that are directly connected to the internet, such as webservers, DNS servers and so on. In this blog post we show an approach that deals with error handling and reasoning about content, and demonstrate the approach using the cat command line utility.
In 2014, Adam Langley, a well-known cryptographer from Google, wrote a post on his personal blog, in which he tried to prove functions from curve25519-donna, one of his projects, using various verification tools: SPARK, Frama-C, Isabelle... He describes this attempt as "disappointing", because he could not manage to prove "simple" things, like absence of runtime errors. I will show in this blogpost that today, it is possible to prove what he wanted to prove, and even more.
A question that our users sometimes ask us is "do you use CodePeer at AdaCore and if so, how?". The answer is yes! and this blog post will hopefully give you some insights into how we are doing it for our own needs.
MISRA C is the most widely known coding standard restricting the use of the C programming language for critical software. For good reasons. For one, its focus is entirely on avoiding error-prone programming features of the C programming language rather than on enforcing a particular programming style. In addition, a large majority of rules it defines are checkable automatically (116 rules out of the total 159 guidelines), and many tools are available to enforce those. As a coding standard, MISRA C even goes out of its way to define a consistent sub-language of C, with its own typing rules (called the "essential type model" in MISRA C) to make up for the lack of strong typing in C.
The is the first part of a multiple part post that covers the development of the AdaFractal project. The idea was to create fractals in Ada. Here we will cover how to use AWS to create a flexible and portable way to display the generated fractals without using bulky graphics libraries.
When I bought the TinyFPGA-BX board, I thought it would be an opportunity to play a little bit with FPGA, learn some Verilog or VHDL. But when I discovered that it was possible to have a RISC-V CPU on it, I knew I had to run Ada code on it.
Calling all members of the Ada and SPARK community, we are pleased to announce that GNAT Community 2018 is here! adacore.com/download
Last week, the programmer Hillel posted a challenge (the link points to a partial postmortem of the provided solutions) on Twitter for someone to prove a correct implementation of three small programming problems: Leftpad, Unique, and Fulcrum.
This is part #2 of the SPARKZumo series of blog posts. This post covers the build system that was used to build the SPARKZumo project and how to automate the process in GPS.
So you want to use SPARK for your next microcontroller project? Great choice! All you need is an Ada 2012 ready compiler and the SPARK tools. But what happens when an Ada 2012 compiler isn’t available for your architecture?
This blog post is part one of a tutorial based on the OpenGLAda project and will cover some the background of the OpenGL API and the basic steps involved in importing platform-dependent C functions.
Fuzzing is a very popular bug finding method. The concept, very simple, is to continuously inject random (garbage) data as input of a software component, and wait for it to crash. If, like me, you find writing robustness test tedious and not very efficient in finding bugs, you might want to try fuzzing your Ada code.Here's a recipe to fuzz-test your Ada code, using American Fuzzy Lop and all the runtime checks your favorite Ada compiler can provide.Let's see (quickly) how AFL works, then jump right into fuzzing 3 open-source Ada libraries: ZipAda, AdaYaml, and GNATCOLL.JSON.
SummaryThe Ada IoT Stack consists of an lwIp (“lightweight IP”) stack implementation written in Ada, with an associated high-level protocol to support embedded device connectivity nodes for today’s IoT world. The project was developed for the Make With Ada 2017 competition based on existing libraries and ported to embedded STM32 devices.
The support for physical units in programming languages is a long-standing issue, which very few languages have even attempted to solve. This issue has been mostly solved for Ada in 2012 by our colleagues Ed Schonberg and Vincent Pucci who introduced special aspects for specifying physical dimensions on types. This dimension system did not attempt to deal with generics though. As was noted by others, handling generics in a dimensional analysis that is, like in GNAT, a compile-time analysis with no impact on the executable size or running time, is the source of the problem of dimension handling. Together with our partners from Technical Universitat München, we have finally solved this remaining difficulty.
This project involves the design of a software platform that provides a good basis when developing motor controllers for brushless DC motors (BLDC/PMSM). It consist of a basic but clean and readable implementation of a sensored field oriented control algorithm. Included is a logging feature that will simplify development and allows users to visualize what is happening. The project shows that Ada successfully can be used for a bare-metal project that requires fast execution.
While we are working very hard on semantic analysis in Libadalang, it is already possible to leverage its lexical and syntactic analyzers. A useful example for this is a syntax highlighter.
For all the power that comes with proof technology, one sometimes has to pay the price of writing a loop invariant. Along the years, we've strived to facilitate writing loop invariants by improving the documentation and the technology in different ways, but writing loops invariants remains difficult sometimes, in particular for beginners. To completely remove the need for loop invariants in simple cases, we have implemented loop unrolling in GNATprove. It turns out it is quite powerful when applicable.
A friend pointed me to recent posts by Tommy M. McGuire, in which he describes how Frama-C can be used to functionally prove a brute force version of string search, and to find a previously unknown bug in a faster version of string search called quick search. Frama-C and SPARK share similar history, techniques and goals. So it was tempting to redo the same proofs on equivalent code in SPARK, and completing them with a functional proof of the fixed version of quick search. This is what I'll present in this post.
While SPARK has been used for years in companies like Altran UK, companies without the same know-how may find it intimidating to get started on formal program verification. To help with that process, AdaCore has collaborated with Thales throughout the year 2016 to produce a 70-pages detailed guidance document for the adoption of SPARK. These guidelines are based on five levels of assurance that can be achieved on software, in increasing order of costs and benefits: Stone level (valid SPARK), Bronze level (initialization and correct data flow), Silver level (absence of run-time errors), Gold level (proof of key properties) and Platinum level (full functional correctness). These levels, and their mapping to the Development Assurance Levels (DAL) and Safety Integrity Levels (SIL) used in certification standards, were presented at the recent High Confidence Software and Systems conference.
A few weeks ago one of my colleagues shared this kickstarter project : The Barisieur. It’s an alarm clock coffee maker, promising to wake you up with a freshly brewed cup of coffee every morning. I jokingly said “just give me an espresso machine and I can do the same”. Soon after, the coffee machine is in my office. Now it is time to deliver :)
After we created lightweight checkers based on the recent Libadalang technology developed at AdaCore, a colleague gave us the challenge of creating a copy-paste detector based on Libadalang. It turned out to be both easier than anticipated, and much more efficient and effective than we could have hoped for. In the end, we hope to use this new detector to refactor the codebase of some of our tools, and we expect to integrate it in our IDEs.
This year again, the VerifyThis competition took place as part of ETAPS conferences. This is the occasion for builders and users of formal program verification platforms to use their favorite tools on common challenges. The first challenge this year was a good fit for SPARK, as it revolves around proving properties of an imperative sorting procedure. In this post, I am using this challenge to show how one can reach different levels of software assurance with SPARK.
GNATprove performs auto-active verification, that is, verification is done automatically, but usually requires annotations by the user to succeed. In SPARK, annotations are most often given in the form of contracts (pre and postconditions). But some language features, in particular ghost code, allow proof guidance to be much more involved. In a paper we are presenting at NASA Formal Methods symposium 2017, we describe how an imperative red black tree implementation in SPARK was verified using intensive auto-active verification.
The Ada Drivers Library (ADL) is a collection of Ada device drivers and examples for ARM-based embedded targets. The library is maintained by AdaCore, with development originally (and predominantly) by AdaCore personnel but also by the Ada community at large. It is available on GitHub and is licensed for both proprietary and non-proprietary use.
NIST has recently published a report called "Dramatically Reducing Software Vulnerabilities" in which they single out five approaches which have the potential for creating software with 100 times fewer vulnerabilities than we do today. One of these approaches is formal methods. Among formal methods, the report highlights strong suits of SPARK, and cites SPARK projects as example of mature uses of formal methods. NIST is not the only ones to support the use of SPARK. Editor Bill Wong from Electronic Design has included SPARK in his "2016 Gifts for the Techie". So if your new year's resolutions include software without bugs, have a look at SPARK in 2017.
It turns out that the CodePeer engine can be used as a powerful prover for SPARK programs. This feature will be available in the next version of SPARK Pro, make sure you try it out!
One of the most important challenges for SPARK users is to come up with adequate contracts and annotations, allowing GNATprove to verify the expected properties in a modular way. Among the annotations mandated by the SPARK toolset, the hardest to come up with are probably loop invariants. A previous post explains how GNATprove can automatically infer loop invariants for preservation of unmodified record components, and so, even if the record is itself nested inside a record or an array. Recently, this generation was improved to also support the simplest cases of partial array updates. We describe in this post in which cases GNATprove can, or cannot, infer loop invariants for preservation of unmodified array components.
One year ago, we presented on this blog what was provable about fixed-point and floating-point computations (the two forms of real types in SPARK). Since then, we have integrated static analysis in SPARK, and modified completely the way floating-point numbers are seen by SMT provers. Both of these features lead to dramatic changes in provability for code doing fixed-point and floating-point computations.
This blog, the first in a series, explains the basic mechanisms that GPS (the GNAT Programming Studio) provides to integrate external tools. A small plugin might make your daily workflow more convenient by providing toolbar buttons and menus to spawn your tool and parse its output.
Tasking was one of the big features introduced in the previous release of SPARK 2014. However, GNATprove only supported tasking-related constructs allowed by the Ravenscar profile. Now it also supports the more relaxed GNAT Extended Ravenscar profile.
Last week, a few of us at AdaCore have attended a one-day workshop organized at Thales Research and Technologies, around the topic of "Verified, trustworthy code - formal verification of software". Attendees from many different branches of Thales (avionics, railway, security, networks) were given an overview of the state-of-practice in formal verification of software, focused on two technologies: the SPARK technology that we develop at AdaCore for programs in Ada, and the Frama-C technology developed at CEA research labs for programs in C. The most interesting part of the day was the feedback given by three operational teams who have experimented during a few months with either SPARK (two teams) or Frama-C (one team). The lessons learned by first-time adopters of such technologies are quite valuable.
The GNAT Programming Studio support for the debugger has been enhanced. This post describes the various changes you can expect in this year's new release of GPS.
Formal verification tools like GNATprove rely on the user to provide loop invariants to describe the actions performed inside loops. Though the preservation of variables which are not modified in the loop need not be mentioned in the invariant, it is in general necessary to state explicitly the preservation of unmodified object parts, such as record fields or array elements. These preservation properties form the loop’s frame condition. As it may seem obvious to the user, the frame condition is unfortunately often forgotten when writing a loop invariant, leading to unprovable checks. To alleviate this problem, the GNATprove tool now generates automatically frame conditions for preserved record components. In this post, we describe this new feature on an example.
Researchers from Dependable Computing and Zephyr Software LLC have presented at the latest NASA Formal Methods conference last week their work on proving security of binary programs. In this work, they use SPARK as intermediate language and GNATprove as proof tool, which is an atypical and interesting use of the SPARK technology.
A well-know result of computing theory is that the theory of arithmetic is undecidable. This has practical consequences in automatic proof of programs which manipulate numbers. The provers that we use in SPARK have a good support for addition and subtraction, but much weaker support for multiplication and division. This means that as soon as the program has multiplications and divisions, it is likely that some checks won't be proved automatically. Until recently, the only way forward was either to complete the proof using an interactive prover (like Coq or Isabelle/HOL) or to justify manually the message about an unproved check. There is now a better way to prove automatically such checks, using the recent SPARK lemma library.
AdaCore provides several tools with certification and qualification capabilities, for the rail and avionics industry. Quentin Ochem’s presentation on “Certification and Qualification” at the 2015 AdaCore Tech Days in Boston, Massachusetts provided more information about these two standards, namely DO-178C and EN:50128:2011.
David Parnas is a well-known researcher in formal methods, who famously contributed to the analysis of the shut-down software for the Darlington nuclear power plant and designed the specification method known as Parnas tables and the development method called Software Cost Reduction. In 2010, the magazine CACM asked him to identify what was preventing more widespread adoption of formal methods in industry, and in this article on Really Rethinking Formal Methods he listed 17 areas that needed rethinking. The same year, we started a project to recreate SPARK with new ideas and new technology, which lead to SPARK 2014 as it is today. Parnas's article influenced some critical design decisions. Six years later, it's interesting to see how the choices we made in SPARK 2014 address (or not) Parnas's concerns.
A few months ago, my colleague Rebecca installed a candy dispenser in our kitchen here at AdaCore. I don’t remember how exactly, but I was challenged to make it more… fun.
A step by step tutorial to adapt the ARM runtime to new MCUs/boards.
As presented in a recent post by Pavlos, the upcoming release of SPARK Pro will support concurrency features of Ada, with the restrictions defined in the Ravenscar profile of Ada. This profile restricts concurrency so that concurrent programs are deterministic and schedulable. SPARK analysis makes it possible to prove that shared data is protected against data races, that deadlocks cannot occur and that no other run-time errors related to concurrency can be encountered when running the program. In this post, I revisit the example given by Pavlos to show SPARK features and GNATprove analysis in action.
While the analysis of failed proofs is one of the most challenging aspects of formal verification, it would be much easier if a tool would automatically find values of variables showing why a proof fails. SPARK Pro 16, to be released in 2016, is going to introduce such a feature. If a proof fails, it attempts to generate a counterexample exhibiting the problem. This post introduces this new feature, developed in the scope of the ProofInUse laboratory.
One of the most difficult tasks when using proof techniques is to interact with provers, in particular to progressively increase proof power until everything that should be proved is proved. Until the last release, increasing the proof power meant operating on three separate switches. There is now a simpler solution based on a new switch --level, together with a simpler proof panel in GPS for new users.
Based on our many years of experience with our customers using SPARK in their projects, we have come up with a list of eight objectives that are most commonly targeted when using SPARK. Most projects only target a few of them, but in theory one could try to achieve all of them with SPARK on a project. This list may be useful for those who want to assess if the SPARK technology can be of benefit in their context, and to existing SPARK users to compare their existing practice with what others do.
I am very pleased to announce that a book is now available for those who want to learn formal verification with SPARK 2014. This book was written by Prof. John McCormick from University of Northern Iowa and Prof. Peter Chapin from Vermont Technical College. We've been interacting a lot with them since they started in 2013, and the result of these interactions is quite satisfying!
I started out as an electronic musician, so one of my original motivations when I learnt programming was so that I could eventually *program* the sounds I wanted rather than just use already existing software to do it.
July 20, 1969, 8:18 p.m. UTC, while a bunch of guys were about to turn blue on Earth, commander Neil A. Armstrong confirms the landing of his Lunar Module (LM), code name Eagle, on the moon. Will you be able to manually land Eagle on the Sea of Tranquillity?
In 2010, Rod Chapman released an implementation in SPARK of the Skein cryptographic hash algorithm, and he proved that this implementation was free of run-time errors. That was a substantial effort with the previous version of the SPARK technology. We have recently translated the code of SPARKSkein from SPARK 2005 to SPARK 2014, and used GNATprove to prove absence of run-time errors in the translated program. The difference between the two technologies is striking. The heroic effort that Rod put in the formal verification of the initial version of SPARKSkein could now be duplicated with modest effort and modest knowledge of the technology, thanks to the much greater proof automation that the SPARK 2014 technology provides, as well as various features that lower the need to provide supporting specifications, most notably contracts on internal subprograms and loop invariants.
Program analyzers interpret the source code of a program to compute some information. Hopefully, the way they interpret the program is consistent with the way that the compiler interprets it to generate an executable, or the information computed is irrelevant, possibly misleading. For example, if the analyzer says that there are no possible run-time errors in a program, and you rely on this information to compile with dynamic checking off, it is crucial that no run-time error could occur as a result of a divergence of opinion between the analyzer and the compiler on the meaning of an instruction. We recently discovered such an inconsistency in how our compiler and analyzers dealt with floating-point exponentiation, which lead to a change in how GNAT now compile these operations.
As automatic proof is time consuming, it is important that rework following a change in source code is minimized. GNATprove uses a combination of techniques to ensure that, both for a single user, and when working in a team.
Contracts may be quite complex, as complex as code in fact, so it is not surprising that they contain errors sometimes. GNATprove can help by pinpointing suspicious constructs that, although legal, do not make much sense. These constructs are likely to be caused by mistakes made by the programmer when writing the contract. In this post, I show examples of incorrect constructs that are signaled by GNATprove.
GNATprove supports the suppression of warnings and justification of check messages with pragmas inserted in the source code. But these justifications may become obsolete across time. To help with that, GNATprove now issues a warning on useless justifications.
While attribute Old allows expressing inside postconditions the value of objects at subprogram entry, this is in general not enough to conveniently express how record and array objects are modified by a procedure. A special attribute Update is defined in SPARK to make it easy to express such properties.
Object Oriented Programming is known for making it particularly difficult to analyze programs, because the subprograms called are not always known statically. The standard for civil avionics certification has recognized this specific problem, and defines a specific verification objective called Local Type Consistency that should be met with one of three strategies. SPARK allows using one of these strategies, by defining the behavior of an overridden subprogram using a special class-wide contract and checking that the behavior of the overriding subprogram is a suitable substitution, following the Liskov Substitution Principle.
Tetris is a well-known game from the 80's, which has been ported in many versions to all game platforms since then. There are even versions of Tetris written in Ada. But there was no version of Tetris written in SPARK, so we've repaired that injustice. Also, there was no version of Tetris for the Atmel SAM4S ARM processor, another injustice we've repaired.
A common situation when proving properties about a program is that you end up writing additional code whose only purpose is to help proving the original program. If you're careful or lucky enough, the additional code you write will not impact the program being verified, and it will be removed during compilation, so that it does not inflate binary size or waste execution cycles. SPARK provides a way to get these benefits automatically, by marking the corresponding code as ghost code, using the new Ghost aspect.
The messages issued by the SPARK toolset will change a bit in the next version of both SPARK Pro and SPARK GPL. This post explains the change and the motivation behind it.
There are cases expressing all the specification of a package in SPARK is either impossible (for example if you need to link them to elements of the mathematical world, like trigonometry functions), cumbersome (especially if they require concepts that cannot easily be described using contracts, like transitivity, counting, summation...), or simply inefficient, for big and complex data structures like containers for example. In these cases, a user can provide directly a manually written Why3 translation for an Ada package using a feature named external axiomatizations. Coming up with this manual translation requires both a knowledge of the WhyML language and a minimal understanding of GNATprove's mechanisms and is therefore reserved to advanced users.
Guiding automatic solvers by adding intermediate assertions is a commonly used technique. We can go further in this direction, by adding complete pieces of code doing nothing, generally called ghost code, to guide the automated reasoning. This is an advanced feature, for people willing to manually guide proofs. Still, it is all in SPARK 2014 and thus does not require the user to learn a new language. We explain here how we can achieve inductive proofs on a permutation function.
Using SPARK or any other formal method in a certification requires that the applicant agrees with the certification authority on the verification objectives that this use of formal methods allows to reach, and how this is obtained and documented. In order to facilitate this process, the participants to the workshop on Theorem Proving in Certification have produced a draft set of guidelines, now publicly available.
We have implemented a new feature in GNATprove for analyzing local subprograms in the context of their calls. This makes it possible to benefit from the most precise analysis for local subprograms, without incurring the cost of adding contracts to these subprograms.
Two recent research papers focus on how program contracts are used in practice in open source projects, in three languages that support contracts (Eiffel obviously, Java with JML contracts and C# with Code Contracts). I'm reporting what I found interesting (and less so) in these two studies.
SPARK only supported array initialization using aggregates, as array initialization in loops raised a false alarm in flow analysis. Read on to learn how the situation has been improved in SPARK 2014.
Having already presented in previous posts why loop invariants are necessary for formal verification of programs with loops, and what loop invariants are necessary for various loops, we detail here a methodology for how users can come up with the right loop invariants for their loops. This methodology in four steps allows users to progressively add the necessary information in their loop invariants, with the tool GNATprove providing the required feedback at each step on whether the information provided is sufficient or not.
My colleague Matteo Bordin will present at the upcoming Embedded Real Time Software and Systems conference in Toulouse in February a case study showing how formal verification with SPARK can be included in a larger process to show preservation of properties from the system level down to the software level. The case study is based on the Nose Gear challenge from the Workshop on Theorem Proving in Certification.