Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
194 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

ESBMC-Python: A Bounded Model Checker for Python Programs (2407.03472v1)

Published 3 Jul 2024 in cs.SE

Abstract: This paper introduces a tool for verifying Python programs, which, using type annotation and front-end processing, can harness the capabilities of a bounded model-checking (BMC) pipeline. It transforms an input program into an abstract syntax tree to infer and add type information. Then, it translates Python expressions and statements into an intermediate representation. Finally, it converts this description into formulae evaluated with satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) solvers. The proposed approach was realized with the efficient SMT-based bounded model checker (ESBMC), which resulted in a tool called ESBMC-Python, the first BMC-based Python-code verifier. Experimental results, with a test suite specifically developed for this purpose, showed its effectiveness, where successful and failed tests were correctly evaluated. Moreover, it found a real problem in the Ethereum Consensus Specification.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (25)
  1. Python tutorial, 1995.
  2. {{\{{TensorFlow}}\}}: a system for {{\{{Large-Scale}}\}} machine learning. In 12th USENIX symposium on operating systems design and implementation (OSDI 16), pages 265–283, 2016.
  3. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
  4. Deep learning with Python, volume 1. Springer, 2017.
  5. Armin Biere. Bounded model checking. In Handbook of satisfiability, pages 739–764. IOS press, 2021.
  6. Model checking c++ programs. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 32(1):e1793, 2022.
  7. Esbmc-jimple: verifying kotlin programs via jimple intermediate representation. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pages 777–780, 2022.
  8. Esbmc-solidity: An smt-based model checker for solidity smart contracts. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings, pages 65–69, 2022.
  9. Concurrent bounded model checking. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 40(1):1–5, 2015.
  10. Magnus Madsen. Static analysis of dynamic languages. 2015.
  11. Bmclua: A translator for model checking lua programs. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 42(3):1–10, 2017.
  12. Smt-based bounded model checking for embedded ansi-c software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 38(4):957–974, 2011.
  13. Bounded model checking for fixed-point digital filters. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society, 22(1):1:1–1:20, 2016.
  14. Verification of delta form realization in fixed-point digital controllers using bounded model checking. In Brazilian Symposium on Computing Systems Engineering, pages 49–54, 2014.
  15. Verifying fragility in digital systems with uncertainties using dsverifier v2.0. J. Syst. Softw., 153:22–43, 2019.
  16. DSVerifier-aided verification applied to attitude control software in unmanned aerial vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 67(4):1420–1441, 2018.
  17. Formal verification of the ethereum 2.0 beacon chain. In International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pages 167–182. Springer, 2022.
  18. Python Software Foundation. ast - abstract syntax trees, 2024. Accessed: 2024-06-03.
  19. Laurent Peuch. ast2json, 2024. Accessed: 2024-06-03.
  20. Explaining type inference. Science of Computer Programming, 27(1):37–83, 1996.
  21. Efficiently computing static single assignment form and the control dependence graph. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 13(4):451–490, 1991.
  22. Model checking python programs with msvl. In International Workshop on Structured Object-Oriented Formal Language and Method, pages 205–224. Springer, 2019.
  23. Boolector: An efficient smt solver for bit-vectors and arrays. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems: 15th International Conference, TACAS 2009, Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2009, York, UK, March 22-29, 2009. Proceedings 15, pages 174–177. Springer, 2009.
  24. Cbmc–c bounded model checker: (competition contribution). In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems: 20th International Conference, TACAS 2014, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2014, Grenoble, France, April 5-13, 2014. Proceedings 20, pages 389–391. Springer, 2014.
  25. Finding software vulnerabilities in open-source c projects via bounded model checking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05281, 2023.

Summary

  • The paper introduces ESBMC-Python, a tool that transforms Python code via type annotations into an intermediate representation for bounded model checking.
  • It leverages SMT solvers to detect issues such as division by zero and arithmetic overflows, achieving verification times between 24.5 ms and 49.1 ms.
  • Its evaluation on 85 Python programs and application to the Ethereum consensus specification highlight practical benefits for software security and reliability.

ESBMC-Python: A Bounded Model Checker for Python Programs

The paper "ESBMC-Python: A Bounded Model Checker for Python Programs" presents a novel tool that adapts the ESBMC (Efficient SMT-based Bounded Model Checker) framework to verify Python programs. This tool leverages type annotations and various front-end processing techniques to translate Python code into an intermediate representation conducive to bounded model checking (BMC).

Summary of Approach

The core methodology involves transforming an input Python program into an abstract syntax tree (AST), augmenting it with type information, and subsequently converting it into an intermediate representation. This representation can be analyzed through first-order logic formulae evaluated by satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) solvers. The transformation process consists of three main components:

  1. Python Parser: Converts Python source code into an AST using the ast and ast2json libraries.
  2. Python Type Annotation: Adds inferred type annotations to the AST nodes, thereby facilitating static analysis.
  3. Python Converter: Translates the annotated AST into the ESBMC’s intermediate representation (IRep), which then interacts with ESBMC’s back-end.

Tool Architecture

ESBMC-Python’s architecture integrates front-end processing with ESBMC’s established pipeline. The front-end components generate ASTs from Python source code, annotate types, and convert program statements into IRep. This intermediate code is then subjected to symbolic execution and formal verification by SMT solvers. Importantly, the tool can detect numerous issues, including division by zero, arithmetic overflows, and violations of user-defined assertions.

Experimental Results

The authors present a comprehensive evaluation of ESBMC-Python using a custom benchmark suite consisting of 85 Python programs. Their experimental investigation addresses two main questions: the soundness of the approach and its performance in terms of time and memory consumption.

  • Soundness: ESBMC-Python successfully identified all known wrong programs, confirming the tool's capacity to detect property violations accurately.
  • Performance: The tool demonstrated efficient verification, with average verification times ranging from 24.5 ms to 49.1 ms, and memory usage spanning from 14.5 MB to 26.4 MB. These results indicate that ESBMC-Python operates with performance metrics comparable to established BMC tools for other languages.

Furthermore, ESBMC-Python was applied to the Ethereum blockchain consensus specification. It successfully detected a division-by-zero issue, subsequently confirmed and rectified by the maintainers, demonstrating its practical applicability to real-world software systems.

Implications and Future Work

The introduction of ESBMC-Python has several practical and theoretical implications:

  • Practical Implications: The tool enhances the ability of developers to verify Python programs rigorously, which is particularly valuable for applications with critical security requirements. Given Python's prevalent use in domains such as AI and web applications, ESBMC-Python can significantly contribute to software reliability and security.
  • Theoretical Implications: The approach demonstrates the feasibility of adapting BMC techniques to dynamically-typed languages like Python. It underscores the utility of type annotations in facilitating static analysis of Python programs.

Future Developments

For future work, the authors have identified several directions:

  1. Extended Language Features: Expanding the tool to support additional features and more complex program flows.
  2. Enhanced Type Inference: Improving the type inference algorithm to handle intricate execution paths and complex expressions.
  3. Integration of AI Methods: Exploring the potential of LLMs to enhance type inference.
  4. Verification of AI Libraries: Developing operational models to verify widely-used AI libraries, ensuring their robustness and correctness.

Conclusion

ESBMC-Python represents a significant advancement in the formal verification of Python programs using bounded model checking. Its integration into the ESBMC framework, combined with effective type annotation and conversion strategies, demonstrates promise for both academic research and industrial applications. By addressing Python's dynamic nature and enabling rigorous verification, ESBMC-Python could pave the way for more secure and reliable software systems.