Fully-automated Runtime Enforcement of Component-based Systems with Formal and Sound Recovery

International audienceWe introduce runtime enforcement of specifications on component-based systems (CBS) modeled in the BIP (Behavior, Interaction and Priority) framework. Runtime enforcement is an increasingly popular and effective dynamic validation technique aiming to ensure the correct runtime behavior (w.r.t. a formal specification) of a system using a so-called enforcement monitor. BIP is a powerful and expressive component-based framework for the formal construction of heterogeneous systems. Because of BIP expressiveness however , it is difficult to enforce complex behavioral properties at design-time. We first introduce a theoretical runtime enforcement framework for component-based systems where we delineate a hierarchy of enforceable properties (i.e., properties that can be enforced) according to the number of observational steps a system is allowed to deviate from the property (i.e., the notion of k-step enforceability). To ensure the observational equivalence between the correct executions of the initial system and the monitored system, we show that i) only stutter-invariant properties should be enforced on CBS with our monitors, and ii) safety properties are 1-step enforceable. Second, given an abstract enforcement monitor for some 1-step enforceable property, we define a series of formal transformations to instrument (at relevant locations) a CBS described in the BIP framework to integrate the monitor. At runtime, the monitor observes and automatically avoids any error in the behavior of the system w.r.t. the property. Third, our approach is fully implemented in RE-BIP, an available tool integrated in the BIP tool suite. Fourth, to validate our approach, we use RE-BIP to i) enforce deadlock-freedom on a dining philosophers benchmark, and ii) ensure the correct placement of robots on a map

Organising LTL monitors over distributed systems with a global clock

Users wanting to monitor distributed systems often prefer to abstract away the architecture of the system, allowing them to directly specify correctness properties on the global system behaviour. To support this abstraction, a compilation of the properties would not only involve the typical choice of monitoring algorithm, but also the organisation of submonitors across the component network. Existing approaches, considered in the context of LTL properties over distributed systems with a global clock, include the so-called orchestration and migration approaches. In the orchestration approach, a central monitor receives the events from all subsystems. In the migration approach, LTL formulae transfer themselves across subsystems to gather local information. We propose a third way of organising submonitors: choreography — where monitors are orgnized as a tree across the distributed system, and each child feeds intermediate results to its parent. We formalise this approach, proving its correctness and worst case performance, and report on an empirical investigation comparing the three approaches on several concerns of decentralised monitoring.peer-reviewe

Enforcement and Validation (at runtime) of Various Notions of Opacity

International audienceWe are interested in the validation of opacity. Opacity models the impossibility for an attacker to retrieve the value of a secret in a system of interest. Roughly speaking, ensuring opacity provides confidentiality of a secret on the system that must not leak to an attacker. More specically, we study how we can model-check, verify and enforce at system runtime, several levels of opacity. Besides existing notions of opacity, we also introduce K-step strong opacity, a more practical notion of opacity that provides a stronger level of confidentiality

Organising LTL monitors over distributed systems with a global clock

Users wanting to monitor distributed systems often prefer to abstract away the architecture of the system, allowing them to directly specify correctness properties on the global system behaviour. To support this abstraction, a compilation of the properties would not only involve the typical choice of monitoring algorithm, but also the organisation of submonitors across the component network. Existing approaches, considered in the context of LTL properties over distributed systems with a global clock, include the so-called orchestration and migration approaches. In the orchestration approach, a central monitor receives the events from all subsystems. In the migration approach, LTL formulae transfer themselves across subsystems to gather local information. We propose a third way of organising submonitors: choreography — where monitors are orgnized as a tree across the distributed system, and each child feeds intermediate results to its parent. We formalise this approach, proving its correctness and worst case performance, and report on an empirical investigation comparing the three approaches on several concerns of decentralised monitoring.peer-reviewe

Runtime Enforcement for Component-Based Systems

Runtime enforcement is an increasingly popular and effective dynamic validation technique aiming to ensure the correct runtime behavior (w.r.t. a formal specification) of systems using a so-called enforcement monitor. In this paper we introduce runtime enforcement of specifications on component-based systems (CBS) modeled in the BIP (Behavior, Interaction and Priority) framework. BIP is a powerful and expressive component-based framework for formal construction of heterogeneous systems. However, because of BIP expressiveness, it remains difficult to enforce at design-time complex behavioral properties. First we propose a theoretical runtime enforcement framework for CBS where we delineate a hierarchy of sets of enforceable properties (i.e., properties that can be enforced) according to the number of observational steps a system is allowed to deviate from the property (i.e., the notion of k-step enforceability). To ensure the observational equivalence between the correct executions of the initial system and the monitored system, we show that i) only stutter-invariant properties should be enforced on CBS with our monitors, ii) safety properties are 1-step enforceable. Given an abstract enforcement monitor (as a finite-state machine) for some 1-step enforceable specification, we formally instrument (at relevant locations) a given BIP system to integrate the monitor. At runtime, the monitor observes and automatically avoids any error in the behavior of the system w.r.t. the specification. Our approach is fully implemented in an available tool that we used to i) avoid deadlock occurrences on a dining philosophers benchmark, and ii) ensure the correct placement of robots on a map.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1109.5505 by other author

Efficient and Generalized Decentralized Monitoring of Regular Languages

Part 2: Monitoring and TestingInternational audienceThis paper proposes an efficient and generalized decentralized monitoring algorithm allowing to detect satisfaction or violation of any regular specification by local monitors alone in a system without central observation point. Our algorithm does not assume any form of synchronization between system events and communication of monitors, uses state machines as underlying mechanism for efficiency, and tries to keep the number and size of messages exchanged between monitors to a minimum. We provide a full implementation of the algorithm with an open-source benchmark to evaluate its efficiency in terms of number, size of exchanged messages, and delay induced by communication between monitors. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithm which outperforms the previous most general one along several (new) monitoring metrics

Second International Competition on Runtime Verification: CRV 2015

International audienceWe report on the Second International Competition on Run-time Verification (CRV-2015). The competition was held as a satellite event of the 15th International Conference on Runtime Verification (RV'15). The competition consisted of three tracks: o✏ine monitoring, online monitoring of C programs, and online monitoring of Java programs. This report describes the format of the competition, the participating teams and submitted benchmarks. We give an example illustrating the two main inputs expected from the participating teams, namely a benchmark (i.e., a program and a property on this program) and a monitor for this benchmark. We also propose some reflection based on the lessons learned