skip to main content
research-article

Automating Certification Objectives with SpeAR

Published:10 January 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The Speci cation and Analysis of Requirements (SpeAR) tool is a requirements prototyping and analysis tool based on the formal semantics of the Lustre language. It features a domain speci c language that formally captures functional requirements of systems or software. Once formalized, requirements can be analyzed to demonstrate correct- ness, consistency, and traceability using in nite-state model checking tools, such as JKind. The formal notation and analyses that SpeAR supports can be used to automate activities related to certi cation of safety critical software as suggested by DO-178C: Software Considera- tions in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certi cation. This standard de nes a rigorous software development process that ensures that soft- ware development activities produce object code that implement sys- tem requirements correctly, while introducing no additional functional- ity. Recent updates to the guidance allow for the use of formal methods to satisfy DO-178C certi cation objectives as outlined in DO-333: For- mal Methods Supplement to DO-178C and DO-278A. This paper walks through an e ort in which SpeAR is used to automate certi cation ac- tivities for production avionics software. It focuses on the use of SpeAR to address veri cation objectives related to the software design artifacts of DO-178C, replacing manual peer review activities with more rigorous formal-methods based analyses.

References

  1. Fifarek, A.W.,Wagner, L.G., Ho man, J.A., Rodes, B.D., Aiello, M.A., Davis, J.A. In: SpeAR v2.0: Formalized Past LTL Speci cation and Analysis of Requirements. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2017) 420{426Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Halbwachs, N., Caspi, P., Raymond, P., Pilaud, D.: The synchronous data ow programming language Lustre. Proceedings of the IEEE 79(9) (Sep 1991) 1305{ 1320Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Gacek, A.: The JKind model checker. loonwerks.com/tools/jkind.html (2014)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. RTCA DO-178C: Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certi cation, Washington, DC. (December 2011)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. RTCA DO-333: Formal Methods Supplement to DO-178C and DO-278A, Wash- ington, DC. (December 2011)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Cofer, D., Miller, S. In: DO-333 Certi cation Case Studies. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2014) 1{15Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Wagner, L., Mebsout, A., Tinelli, C., Cofer, D., Slind, K. In: Quali cation of a Model Checker for Avionics Software Veri cation. Springer International Publish- ing, Cham (2017) 404{419Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ghassabani, E., Gacek, A., Whalen, M.W.: E cient generation of inductive validity cores for safety properties. In: Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. FSE 2016, New York, NY, USA, ACM (2016) 314{325Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Gacek, A., Katis, A.,Whalen, M.W., Backes, J., Cofer, D. In: Towards Realizability Checking of Contracts Using Theories. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2015) 173{187Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Kahsai, T., Tinelli, C.: Pkind: A parallel k-induction based model checker. In Barnat, J., Heljanko, K., eds.: Proceedings 10th International Workshop on Paral- lel and Distributed Methods in veri Cation, Snowbird, Utah, USA, July 14, 2011. Volume 72 of Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science., Open Pub- lishing Association (2011) 55{62Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Sheeran, M., Singh, S., St almarck, G. In: Checking Safety Properties Using In- duction and a SAT-Solver. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2000) 127{144Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Hagen, G., Tinelli, C.: Scaling up the formal veri cation of lustre programs with smt-based techniques. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design. FMCAD '08, Piscataway, NJ, USA, IEEE Press (2008) 15:1{15:9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Bradley, A.R. In: SAT-Based Model Checking without Unrolling. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2011) 70{87Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Cimatti, A., Griggio, A. In: Software Model Checking via IC3. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2012) 277{293Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Whalen, M.W., Rajan, A., Heimdahl, M.P., Miller, S.P.: Coverage metrics for requirements-based testing. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. ISSTA '06, New York, NY, USA, ACM (2006) 25{36Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Wagner, L.: SpeAR github repository. www.github.com/lgwagner/spear (2017)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

  • Published in

    cover image ACM SIGAda Ada Letters
    ACM SIGAda Ada Letters  Volume 39, Issue 1
    June 2019
    101 pages
    ISSN:1094-3641
    DOI:10.1145/3379106
    • Editor:
    • Alok Srivastava
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Copyright © 2020 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s)

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 10 January 2020

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)10
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader
About Cookies On This Site

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

Learn more

Got it!