Abstract
Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) integrate physical and cyber components, where the latter are responsible for the computation part. Due to their steadily increasing complexity, these cyber components have to be modeled at high level of abstraction when creating a new CPS. Therefore, the Electronic System Level (ESL) emerged and a widely accepted ESL design language is SystemC. The main driver for abstraction in SystemC is Transaction Level Modeling (TLM) which allows describing complex communication without all the details. Since the SystemC TLM models are used for early software development and as reference for hardware implementation their correct functional behavior is crucial. Admittedly, the best possible verification quality can be achieved with formal approaches. However, formal verification of TLM models is a hard task. Existing methods basically consider local properties or have extremely high run-time. In contrast, the proposed approach can efficiently verify true TLM properties, for instance the effect of a transaction can be formally checked which has not been possible before. Our approach transforms the SystemC model to C, embeds the TLM property in form of assertions into the C model and finally uses a novel induction to check the validity of the property. The induction method is essentially a lifting of inductive bounded model checking to C. In experiments we show the efficiency of the approach.
This chapter is an extended version of a conference paper appeared at MEMOCODE 2010 [1].
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
In the considered TLM models there are no clocks. We only use the clock expression syntax to define sampling points.
- 3.
C model checkers typically support an assumption concept, i.e. assertions are checked for all execution paths of the program that satisfy the assumptions.
- 4.
Our benchmarks can be found on the SCIVER Website: www.systemc-verification.org/sciver.
- 5.
Their experiments were done on a 2 GHz AMD Opteron system with 4 GB RAM running Linux.
References
Große D, Le HM, Drechsler R (2010) Proving transaction and system-level properties of untimed SystemC TLM designs. In: ACM and IEEE international conference on formal methods and models for codesign, pp 113–122
Bailey B, Martin G, Piziali A (2007) ESL design and verification: a prescription for electronic system level methodology. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam
IEEE Standard for Standard SystemC Language Reference Manual (2012) IEEE Std. 1666
Pasricha S (2002) Transaction level modeling of SoC with SystemC 2.0. In: SNUG
Cai L, Gajski D (2003) Transaction level modeling: an overview. In: IEEE/ACM/IFIP international conference on hardware/software codesign and system synthesis, pp 19–24
Ghenassia F (2006) Transaction-level modeling with SystemC: TLM concepts and applications for embedded systems. Springer, US
Vardi MY (2007) Formal techniques for SystemC verification. In: Design Automation Conference, pp 188–192
Dahan A, Geist D, Gluhovsky L, Pidan D, Shapir G, Wolfsthal Y, Benalycherif L, Kamdem R, Lahbib Y (2005) Combining system level modeling with assertion based verification. In: ISQED, pp 310–315
Ecker W, Esen V, Hull M, Steininger T, Velten M (2006) Requirements and concepts for transaction level assertions. In: International conference on computer design, pp 286–293
Bombieri N, Fummi F, Pravadelli G (2007) Incremental ABV for functional validation of TL-to-RTL design refinement. In: Design, automation and test in Europe, pp 882–887
Ferro L, Pierre L (2009) ISIS: runtime verification of TLM platforms. In: Forum on specification and design languages, pp 1–6
Tabakov D, Vardi MY (2010) Monitoring temporal SystemC properties. In: ACM and IEEE international conference on formal methods and models for codesign, pp 123–132
Ferro L, Pierre L, Amor ZBH, Lachaize J, Lefftz V (2011) Runtime verification of typical requirements for a space critical SoC platform. In: FMICS, pp 21–36
Cimatti A, Narasamdya I, Roveri M (2011) Boosting lazy abstraction for SystemC with partial order reduction. In: Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems, pp 341–356
Habibi A, Tahar S (2005) Design for verification of SystemC transaction level models. In: Design, automation and test in Europe, pp 560–565
Moy M, Maraninchi F, Maillet-Contoz L (2006) LusSy: an open tool for the analysis of systems-on-a-chip at the transaction level. In: Design automation for embedded systems, pp 73–104
Karlsson D, Eles P, Peng Z (2006) Formal verification of SystemC designs using a petri-net based representation. In: Design, automation and test in Europe, pp 1228–1233
Niemann B, Haubelt C (2006) Formalizing TLM with communicating state machines. In: Forum on specification and design languages, pp 285–293
Traulsen C, Cornet J, Moy M, Maraninchi F (2007) A SystemC/TLM semantics in Promela and its possible applications. In: SPIN, pp 204–222
Helmstetter C, Ponsini O (2008) A comparison of two SystemC/TLM semantics for formal verification. In: ACM and IEEE international conference on formal methods and models for codesign, pp 59–68
Herber P, Fellmuth J, Glesner S (2008) Model checking SystemC designs using timed automata. In: IEEE/ACM/IFIP international conference on hardware/software codesign and system synthesis, pp 131–136
Kundu S, Ganai M, Gupta R (2008) Partial order reduction for scalable testing of SystemC TLM designs. In: Design automation conference, pp 936–941
Blanc N, Kroening D (2008) Race analysis for SystemC using model checking. In: International conference on CAD, pp 356–363
Cimatti A, Micheli A, Narasamdya I, Roveri M (2010) Verifying SystemC: a software model checking approach. In: International conference on formal methods in CAD, pp 51–60
Tabakov D, Vardi M, Kamhi G, Singerman E (2008) A temporal language for SystemC. In: International conference on formal methods in CAD, pp 1–9
Accellera Property Specification Language Reference Manual (2005) version 1.1. http://www.pslsugar.org
Chou C-N, Ho Y-S, Hsieh C, Huang C-Y (2012) Symbolic model checking on SystemC designs. In: Design automation conference, pp 327–333
Le HM, Große D, Herdt V, Drechsler R (2013) Verifying SystemC using an intermediate verification language and symbolic simulation. In: Design automation conference, pp 116:1–116:6
Herdt V, Le HM, Drechsler R (2015) Verifying SystemC using stateful symbolic simulation. In: Design automation conference, pp 49:1–49:6
Biere A, Cimatti A, Clarke EM, Zhu Y (1999) Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems, pp 193–207
Sheeran M, Singh S, Stålmarck G (2000) Checking safety properties using induction and a SAT-solver. In: International conference on formal methods in CAD, pp 108–125
Bjesse P, Claessen K (2000) SAT-based verification without state space traversal. In: International conference on formal methods in CAD, pp 372–389
Clarke EM, Kroening D, Lerda F (2004) A tool for checking ANSI-C programs. In: Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems, pp 168–176
Brummayer R, Biere A (2009) Boolector: an efficient SMT solver for bit-vectors and arrays. In: Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems, pp 174–177
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Große, D., Le, H.M., Drechsler, R. (2017). Formal Verification of SystemC-based Cyber Components. In: Jeschke, S., Brecher, C., Song, H., Rawat, D. (eds) Industrial Internet of Things. Springer Series in Wireless Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42559-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42559-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42558-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42559-7
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)