A survey on formal specification and verification of separation kernels

Abstract

Separation kernels are fundamental software of safety and security-critical systems, which provide their hosted applications with spatial and temporal separation as well as controlled information flows among partitions. The application of separation kernels in critical domain demands the correctness of the kernel by formal verification. To the best of our knowledge, there is no survey paper on this topic. This paper presents an overview of formal specification and verification of separation kernels. We first present the background including the concept of separation kernel and the comparisons among different kernels. Then, we survey the state of the art on this topic since 2000. Finally, we summarize research work by detailed comparison and discussion.

Keywords

real-time operating systems / separation kernel / survey / formal specification / formal verification

References

[1] RushbyJ. Design and verification of secure systems. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 1981, 15(5): 12–21

[2] Alves-FossJ, OmanP W, TaylorC, Harrison W S. The MILS architecture for high-assurance embedded systems. International journal of embedded systems, 2006, 2(3-4): 239–247

[3] DenningD E. A lattice model of secure information flow. Communications of the ACM, 1976, 19(5): 236–243

[4] GjertsenT, Nordbotten N A. Multiple independent levels of security (MILS) — a high assurance architecture for handling information of different classification levels. Technical Report. 2008

[5] ARINC Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee. ARINC 653 – avionics application software standard interface. 2003

[6] Wind river VxWorks MILS platform. Technical Report, 2013

[7] Green Hills Software, Inc. Safety-critical products: Integrity-178b real-time operationg system. Technical Report. 2005

[8] LynuxWorks, Inc. Lynxsecure: software security driven by an embedded hypervisor. Technical Report. 2012

[9] LynuxWorks, Inc. Lynxos-se: time- and space-partitioned RTOS with open-standards apis. Technical Report. 2008

[10] RobertK, Stephan W. The pikeos concept —history and design. Technical Report. 2007

[11] DelangeJ, LecL. Pok, an ARINC 653-compliant operating system released under the BSD license. In: Proceedings of the 13th Real-Time Linux Workshop. 2011

[12] MasmanoM, RipollI, CrespoA, Metge J. Xtratum: a hypervisor for safety critical embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th Real- Time Linux Workshop. 2009

[13] WoodcockJ, LarsenPG, BicarreguiJ , FitzgeraldJ. Formal methods: practice and experience. ACM Computing Surveys, 2009, 41(4): 1729–1739

[14] National Security Agency. Common criteria for information technology security evaluation. 3.1 r4 edition, 2012

[15] National Security Agency. U.S. government protection profile for separation kernels in environments requiring high robustness. Technical Report. 2007

[16] Federal Aviation Authority. Software considerations in airborne systems and equipment certification. Technical Report RTCA/DO-178B. RTCA, Inc., 1992

[17] Federal Aviation Authority. Software considerations in airborne systems and equipment certification. Technical Report RTCA/DO-178C. RTCA, Inc., 2011

[18] WildingM M, GreveD A, RichardsR J , HardinD S. Formal verification of partition management for the AAMP7G microprocessor. In: Hardin D S, eds. Design and Verification of Microprocessor Systems for High-Assurance Applications. Berlin: Springer, 2010, 175–191

[19] BaumannC, Beckert B, BlasumH , BormerT. Formal verification of a microkernel used in dependable software systems. In: Buth B, Rade G, Seyfarth T, eds. Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. Berlin: Springer, 2009, 187–200

[20] BaumannC, BormerT. Verifying the PikeOS microkernel: first results in the Verisoft XT avionics project. In: Proceedings of Doctoral Symposium on Systems Software Verification.2009

[21] BaumannC, Beckert B, BlasumH , BormerT. Ingredients of operating system correctness (lessons learned in the formal verification of PikeOS). In: Proceedings of Embedded World Conference. 2010

[22] BaumannC, BormerT, BlasumH, Tverdyshev S. Proving memory separation in a microkernel by code level verification. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Symposium on Object/Component/Service-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing Workshops. 2011, 25–32

[23] RichardsR J. Modeling and security analysis of a commercial real-time operating system kernel. In: Hardin D S, eds. Design and Verification of Microprocessor Systems for High-Assurance Applications. Berlin: Springer, 2010, 301–322

[24] HeitmeyerC L, ArcherM, LeonardE I, McLean J. Formal specification and verification of data separation in a separation kernel for an embedded system. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2006, 346–355

[25] HeitmeyerC L, ArcherM, LeonardE I, McLean J. Applying formal methods to a certifiably secure software system. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2008, 34(1): 82–98

[26] PenixJ, VisserW, EngstromE, Larson A, WeiningerN . Verification of time partitioning in the DEOS scheduler kernel. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering. 2000, 488–497

[27] PenixJ, VisserW, ParkS, Pasareanu C, EngstromE , LarsonA, Weininger N. Verifying time partitioning in the DEOS scheduling kernel. Formal Methods in System Design, 2005, 26(2): 103–135

[28] HaV, Rangarajan M, CoferD , RuesH, and Dutertre B. Feature-based decomposition of inductive proofs applied to real-time avionics software: an experience report. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering. 2004, 304–313

[29] BulkeleyW. Crash-proof code. MIT Technology Review, 2011, 114(3): 53–54

[30] KleinG, Elphinstone K, HeiserG , AndronickJ, CockD, DerrinP, Elkaduwe D, EngelhardtK , KolanskiR, Norrish M, SewellT , TuchH, Winwood S. seL4: formal verification of an OS kernel. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGOPS Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. 2009, 207–220

[31] KleinG, Andronick J, ElphinstoneK , HeiserG, CockD, DerrinP, Elkaduwe D, EngelhardtK , KolanskiR, Norrish M, SewellT , TuchH, Winwood S. seL4: formal verification of an operating-system kernel. Communications of the ACM, 2010, 53(6): 107–115

[32] KleinG. Operating system verification —an overview. Sadhana, 2009, 34(1): 27–69

[33] AmesS R, GasserM, SchellR R. Security kernel design and implementation: an introduction. Computer, 1983, 16(7): 14–22

[34] MarkV, William B, BenC , JahnL, CarolT, GordonU. MILS: architecture for high-assurance embedded computing. CrossTalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 2005, 12–16

[35] The Open Group. Protection profile for partitioning kernels in environments requiring augmented high robustness. Technical Report. 2003

[36] ParrG R, Edwards R. Integrated modular avionics. Air & Space Europe, 1999, 1(2): 72–75

[37] LevinT E, IrvineC E, WeissmanC, Nguyen T D. Analysis of three multilevel security architectures. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Workshop on Computer Security Architecture. 2007, 37–46

[38] RushbyJ. Partitioning in avionics architectures: requirements, mecha nisms, and assurance. Technical Report. 2000

[39] LeinerB, Schlager M, ObermaisserR , HuberB. A comparison of partitioning operating systems for integrated systems. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. 2007, 342–355

[40] RamamrithamK, Stankovic J A. Scheduling algorithms and operating systems support for real-time systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1994, 82(1): 55–67

[41] PopekG J, Goldberg R P. Formal requirements for virtualizable third generation architectures. Communication of ACM, 1974, 17(7): 412–421

[42] GoguenJ A, Meseguer J. Security policies and security models. In: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. 1982

[43] MartinW, WhiteP, TaylorF S, Goldberg A. Formal construction of the mathematically analyzed separation kernel. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. 2000, 133–141

[44] MartinW B, WhiteP D, TaylorF S. Creating high confidence in a separation kernel. Automated Software Engineering, 2002, 9(3): 263–284

[45] MurrayT, Matichuk D, BrassilM , GammieP, KleinG. Noninterference for operating system kernels. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs. 2012, 126–142

[46] GreveD, Wilding M, VaneetW M . A separation kernel formal security policy. In: Proceedings of the ACL2 Workshop. 2003

[47] Alves-fossJ, TaylorC. An analysis of the gwv security policy. In: Proceedings of the ACL2 Workshop. 2004

[48] Green Hills Software. Integrity-178b separation kernel security target. Technical Report. 2008

[49] GreveD, Richards R, WildingM . A summary of intrinsic partitioning verification. In: Proceedings of the ACL2 Workshop. 2004

[50] GreveD. Information security modeling and analysis. In: Hardin D S, eds. Design and Verification of Microprocessor Systems for High- Assurance Applications. Berlin: Springer, 2010, 249–299

[51] RushbyJ. A separation kernel formal security policy in PVS. Technical Report, CSL Technical Note, SRI International. 2004

[52] TverdyshevS. Extending the GWV security policy and its modular application to a separation kernel. In: Bobaru M, Havelund K, Holzmann G J, et al. eds. NASA Formal Methods. Berlin: Springer, 2011, 391–405

[53] GreveD, Wilding M, VanfleetW M . High assurance formal security policy modeling. In: Proceedings of the 17th Systems and Software Technology Conference. 2005

[54] RushbyJ. Noninterference, transitivity, and channel-control security policies. Technical Report, SRI International, Computer Science Laboratory. 1992

[55] OheimbD. Information flow control revisited: noninfluence= noninterference+ nonleakage. In: Proceedings of the 9th European Symposium on Research Computer Security. 2004, 225–243

[56] MantelH, Sabelfeld A. A generic approach to the security of multithreaded programs. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE Workshop on Computer Security Foundations. 2001, 126–142

[57] MurrayT, Matichuk D, BrassilM , GammieP, BourkeT, SeefriedS, Lewis C, GaoX , KleinG. sel4: from general purpose to a proof of information flow enforcement. In: Proceedings of the 34th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. 2013, 415–429

[58] RamirezA, Schmaltz J, VerbeekF , LangensteinB, BlasumH. On two models of noninterference: rushby and greve, wilding, and vanfleet. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. 2014, 246–261

[59] CraigI. Formal Models of Operating System Kernels. London: Springer, 2006

[60] CraigI. Formal Refinement for Operating System Kernels. London: Springer, 2007

[61] AbrialJ R, Schuman S, MeyerB . Specification language. In: McKeag R M, Macnaghten A M, eds. On the Construction of Programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980, 343–410

[62] VelykisA, Freitas L. Formal modelling of separation kernel components. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Colloquium Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Computing. 2010, 230–244

[63] VelykisA. Formal modelling of separation kernels. Dissertation for the Master Degree. York: University of York, 2009

[64] JonesC, O’Hearn P, WoodcockJ . Verified software: a grand challenge. Computer, 2006, 39(4): 93–95

[65] WoodcockJ, DaviesJ. Using Z: Specification, Refinement, and Proof. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996

[66] AbrialJ R. The B-Book: Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1996

[67] AndréP. Assessing the formal development of a secure partitioning kernel with the Bmethod. In: Proceedings of ESAWorkshop on Avionics Data, Control and Software Systems. 2009

[68] LeuschelM, ButlerM. ProB: a model checker for B. In: Proceedings of International Symposium of Formal Methods. 2003, 855–874

[69] KawamoritaK, Kasahara R, MochizukiY , NoguchiK. Application of formal methods for designing a separation kernel for embedded systems. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 2010, 506–514

[70] ZhaoY W, YangZ B, SananD, Liu Y. Event-based formalization of safety-critical operating system standards: an experience report on ARINC 653 using Event-B. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. 2015, 281–292

[71] AbrialJ R, Hallerstede S. Refinement, decomposition, and instantiation of discrete models: application to Event-B. Fundamenta Informaticae, 2007, 77(1-2): 1–28

[72] VerbeekF, Schmaltz J, TverdyshevS , HavleO, BlasumH, LangensteinB , StephanW, Feliachi A, NemouchiY , WotffB. Formal specification of a generic separation kernel. Archive of Formal Proofs, 2014

[73] VerbeekF, HavleO, SchmaltzJ, Tverdyshev S, BlasumH , LangensteinB, Stephan W, WolffB , NemouchiY. Formal API specification of the PikeOS separation kernel. In: Havelund K, Holzmann G, Joshi R, eds. NASA Formal Methods. Springer, 2015, 375–389

[74] KaiserR, WagnerS. Evolution of the pikeos microkernel. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Microkernels for Embedded Systems. 2007

[75] BaumannC, Beckert B, BlasumH , BormerT. Better avionics software reliability by code verification? A glance at code verification methodology in the Verisoft XT project. In: Proceedings of Embedded World Conference. 2009

[76] DamM, Guanciale R, KhakpourN , NematiH, Schwarz O. Formal verification of information flow security for a simple arm-based separation kernel. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer & Communications Security. 2013, 223–234

[77] ZhaoY, SananD, ZhangF, Liu Y. Reasoning about information flow security of separation kernels with channel-based communication. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. 2016, 791–810

[78] HeiserG. The role of virtualization in embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Isolation and Integration in Embedded Systems. 2008, 11–16

[79] McDermottJ, Montrose B, LiM , KirbyJ, KangM. Separation virtual machine monitors. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. 2012, 419–428

[80] CrespoA, RipollI, MasmanoM. Partitioned embedded architecture based on hypervisor: the XtratuM approach. In: Proceedings of the 8th European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC). 2010, 67–72

[81] FranklinJ, ChakiS, DattaA, Seshadri A. Scalable parametric verification of secure systems: how to verify reference monitors without worrying about data structure size. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. 2010, 365–379

[82] FranklinJ, ChakiS, DattaA, McCune J M, VasudevanA . Parametric verification of address space separation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2012, 7215(1): 51–68

[83] BartheG, Betarte G, CampoJ D , LunaC. Formally verifying isolation and availability in an idealized model of virtualization. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Formal Methods. 2011, 231–245

[84] McDermottJ, KirbyJ, MontroseB, Johnson T, KangM . Reengineering Xen internals for higher-assurance security. Information Security Technical Report, 2008, 13(1): 17–24

[85] McDermottJ, Freitas L. A formal security policy for Xenon. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM Workshop on Formal Methods in Security Engineering. 2008, 43–52

[86] RoscoeA, Woodcock J, WulfL . Non-interference through determinism. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium on Research in Computer Security. 1994, 33–53

[87] CarnevaliL, LipariG, PinzutiA, Vicario E. A formal approach to design and verification of two-level hierarchical scheduling systems. In: Proceedings of the 16th Ada-Europe International Conference on Reliable Software Technologies. 2011, 118–131

[88] CarnevaliL, Pinzuti A, VicarioE . Compositional verification for hierarchical scheduling of real-time systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2013, 39(5): 638–657

[89] AsbergM, Pettersson P, NolteT . Modelling, verification and synthesis of two-tier hierarchical fixed-priority preemptive scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS). 2011, 172–181

[90] FersmanE, KrcalP, PetterssonP , WangY. Task automata: schedulability, decidability and undecidability. Information and Computation, 2007, 205(8): 1149–1172

[91] SinghoffF, Plantec A. AADL modeling and analysis of hierarchical schedulers. ACM SIGAda Ada Letters, 2007, 27(3): 41–50

[92] ZerzelidisA, Wellings A. Getting more flexible scheduling in the RTSJ. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Symposium on Object and Component-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing. 2006

[93] ZerzelidisA, Wellings A. A framework for flexible scheduling in the RTSJ. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems, 2010, 10(1): 501–512

[94] ZerzelidisA, Wellings A. Model-based verification of a framework for flexible scheduling in the real-time specification for Java. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Java Technologies for Realtime and Embedded Systems, 2006, 20–29

[95] Alves-FossJ. Multiple independent levels of security. In: Van Tilborg H C A, Jajodia S, eds. Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security. Springer US, 2011, 815–818

[96] ClarksonM, Schneider F. Hyperproperties. Journal of Computer Security, 2010, 18(6): 1157–1210

[97] ClarksonM R, Finkbeiner B, KoleiniM , MicinskiK K, RabeM N, SánchezC . Temporal logics for hyperproperties. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Principles of Security and Trust. 2014, 265–284

[98] AbrialJ R. Formal methods in industry: achievements, problems, future. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering. 2006, 761–768

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg