Engineering with logic: HOL specification and symbolic-evaluation testing for TCP implementations

Conference Record of the Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 55-66

  Bishop, Steve ^a   Fairbairn, Matthew ^a   Norrish, Michael ^b   Sewell, Peter ^a   Smith, Michael ^a   Wansbrough, Keith ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b CSIRO   (Australia)

Author keywords

API; Conformance testing; Higher order logic; HOL; Network protocols; Operational semantics; Sockets; Specification; TCP IP

Indexed keywords

API; CONFORMANCE TESTING; HIGHER-ORDER LOGIC; OPERATIONAL SEMANTICS; SOCKETS; TCP/IP;

COMPUTATION THEORY; NETWORK PROTOCOLS; SEMANTICS; SPECIFICATIONS; SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

LOGIC PROGRAMMING;

EID: 33745830534     PISSN: 07308566     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. R. Alur and B.-Y. Wang. Verifying network protocol implementations by symbolic refinement checking. In Proc. CAV '01, LNCS 2102, pages 169-181, 2001.
2. K. Bhargavan, S. Chandra, P. J. McCann, and C. A. Gunter. What packets may come: automata for network monitoring. In Proc. POPL, pages 206-219, 2001.
3. K. Bhargavan, D. Obradovic, and C. A. Gunter. Formal verification of standards for distance vector routing protocols. J. ACM, 49(4):538-576, 2002.
4. E. Biagioni. A structured TCP in Standard ML. In Proc. SIGCOMM '94, pages 36-45, 1994.
5. S. Bishop, M. Fairbairn, M. Norrish, P. Sewell, M. Smith, and K. Wansbrough. Rigorous specification and conformance testing techniques for network protocols, as applied to TCP, UDP, and Sockets. In Proc. SIGCOMM 2005 (Philadelphia), Aug. 2005.
6. S. Bishop, M. Fairbairn, M. Norrish, P. Sewell, M. Smith, and K. Wansbrough. TCP, UDP, and Sockets: rigorous and experimentally-validated behavioural specification. Volume 1: Overview. Technical Report UCAM-CL-TR-624, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Mar. 2005. 88pp. Available at http://ww.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/pes20/Netsem/.
7. S. Bishop, M. Fairbairn, M. Norrish, P. Sewell, M. Smith, and K. Wansbrough. TCP, UDP, and Sockets: rigorous and experimentally-validated behavioural specification. Volume 2: The specification. Technical Report UCAM-CL-TR-625, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Mar. 2005. 386pp. Available at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/pes20/Netsem/.
8. C. Castelluccia, W. Dabbous, and S. O'Malley. Generating efficient protocol code from an abstract specification. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., 5(4):514-524, 1997. Full version of a paper in SIGCOMM '96.
9. M. Compton. Stenning's protocol implemented in UDP and verified in Isabelle. In Proc. 11th CATS, Computing: The Australasian Theory Symposium, pages 21-30, 2005.
10. M. Gordon, R. Milner, and C. P. Wadsworth. Edinburgh LCF, LNCS 78, 1979.
11. M. J. C. Gordon and T. Melham, editors. Introduction to HOL: a theorem proving environment. Cambridge University Press, 1993.
12. The HOL 4 system, Kananaskis-3 release, hol.sourceforgs.net.
13. IEEE and The Open Group. IEEE Std 1003.1™-2001 Standard for Information Technology - Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX®). Dec. 2001. Issue 6. Available http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904976/toc.htm.
14. The Isabelle proof assistant. http://isabelle.in.tum.de/.
15. E. Kohler, M. F. Kaashoek, and D. R. Montgomery. A readable TCP in the Prolac protocol language. In Proc. SIGGCOMM '99, pages 3-13, August 1999.
16. N. Lynch and F. Vaandrager. Forward and backward simulations - Part II: Timing-based systems. Information and Computation, 128(1):1-25, July 1996.
17. M. Musuvathi and D. Engler. Model checking large network protocol implementations. In Proc.NSDI: 1st Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, pages 155-168, 2004.
18. M. Norrish, P. Sewell, and K. Wansbrough. Rigour is good for you, and feasible: reflections on formal treatments of C and UDP sockets. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop (Saint-Emilion), pages 49-53, Sept. 2002.
19. V. Paxson. Automated packet trace analysis of TCP implementations. In Proc. SIGCOMM '97, pages 167-179, 1997.
20. A. Serjantov, P. Sewell, and K. Wansbrough. The UDP calculus: Rigorous semantics for real networking. Technical Report 515, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, July 2001.
21. A. Serjantov, P. Sewell, and K. Wansbrough. The UDP calculus: Rigorous semantics for real networking. In Proc. TACS 2001: Fourth International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software, Tohoku University, Sendai, Oct. 2001.
22. M. A. Smith and K. K. Ramakrishnan. Formal specification and verification of safety and performance of TCP selective acknowledgment. IEEE/ ACM Trans. Netw., 10(2):193-207, 2002.
23. M. A. S. Smith. Formal verification of communication protocols. In Proc. FORTE IX/PSTV XVI, pages 129-144, 1996.
24. W. R. Stevens. TCP/IP Illustrated Vol. 1: The Protocols. 1994.
25. W. R. Stevens. UNIX Network Programming Vol. 1: Networking APIs: Sockets and XTI. Second edition, 1998.
26. K. Wansbrough, M. Norrish, P. Sewell, and A. Serjantov. Timing UDP: mechanized semantics for sockets, threads and failures. In Proc. ESOP, LNCS 2305, pages 278-294, Apr. 2002.
27. G. K. Wright and W. R. Stevens. TCP state transition diagram. In TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 2: The Implementation http://www.kohala.com/start/pocketguide1.ps.
28. G. R. Wright and W. R. Stevens. TCP/IP Illustrated Vol. 2: The Implementation. 1995.
29. W. Yi. CCS + time = an interleaving model for real time systems. In Proc. ICALP, pages 217-228, 1991.