185 lines
6.3 KiB
ReStructuredText
185 lines
6.3 KiB
ReStructuredText
|
Deterministic Automata
|
||
|
======================
|
||
|
|
||
|
Formally, a deterministic automaton, denoted by G, is defined as a quintuple:
|
||
|
|
||
|
*G* = { *X*, *E*, *f*, x\ :subscript:`0`, X\ :subscript:`m` }
|
||
|
|
||
|
where:
|
||
|
|
||
|
- *X* is the set of states;
|
||
|
- *E* is the finite set of events;
|
||
|
- x\ :subscript:`0` is the initial state;
|
||
|
- X\ :subscript:`m` (subset of *X*) is the set of marked (or final) states.
|
||
|
- *f* : *X* x *E* -> *X* $ is the transition function. It defines the state
|
||
|
transition in the occurrence of an event from *E* in the state *X*. In the
|
||
|
special case of deterministic automata, the occurrence of the event in *E*
|
||
|
in a state in *X* has a deterministic next state from *X*.
|
||
|
|
||
|
For example, a given automaton named 'wip' (wakeup in preemptive) can
|
||
|
be defined as:
|
||
|
|
||
|
- *X* = { ``preemptive``, ``non_preemptive``}
|
||
|
- *E* = { ``preempt_enable``, ``preempt_disable``, ``sched_waking``}
|
||
|
- x\ :subscript:`0` = ``preemptive``
|
||
|
- X\ :subscript:`m` = {``preemptive``}
|
||
|
- *f* =
|
||
|
- *f*\ (``preemptive``, ``preempt_disable``) = ``non_preemptive``
|
||
|
- *f*\ (``non_preemptive``, ``sched_waking``) = ``non_preemptive``
|
||
|
- *f*\ (``non_preemptive``, ``preempt_enable``) = ``preemptive``
|
||
|
|
||
|
One of the benefits of this formal definition is that it can be presented
|
||
|
in multiple formats. For example, using a *graphical representation*, using
|
||
|
vertices (nodes) and edges, which is very intuitive for *operating system*
|
||
|
practitioners, without any loss.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The previous 'wip' automaton can also be represented as::
|
||
|
|
||
|
preempt_enable
|
||
|
+---------------------------------+
|
||
|
v |
|
||
|
#============# preempt_disable +------------------+
|
||
|
--> H preemptive H -----------------> | non_preemptive |
|
||
|
#============# +------------------+
|
||
|
^ |
|
||
|
| sched_waking |
|
||
|
+--------------+
|
||
|
|
||
|
Deterministic Automaton in C
|
||
|
----------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
In the paper "Efficient formal verification for the Linux kernel",
|
||
|
the authors present a simple way to represent an automaton in C that can
|
||
|
be used as regular code in the Linux kernel.
|
||
|
|
||
|
For example, the 'wip' automata can be presented as (augmented with comments)::
|
||
|
|
||
|
/* enum representation of X (set of states) to be used as index */
|
||
|
enum states {
|
||
|
preemptive = 0,
|
||
|
non_preemptive,
|
||
|
state_max
|
||
|
};
|
||
|
|
||
|
#define INVALID_STATE state_max
|
||
|
|
||
|
/* enum representation of E (set of events) to be used as index */
|
||
|
enum events {
|
||
|
preempt_disable = 0,
|
||
|
preempt_enable,
|
||
|
sched_waking,
|
||
|
event_max
|
||
|
};
|
||
|
|
||
|
struct automaton {
|
||
|
char *state_names[state_max]; // X: the set of states
|
||
|
char *event_names[event_max]; // E: the finite set of events
|
||
|
unsigned char function[state_max][event_max]; // f: transition function
|
||
|
unsigned char initial_state; // x_0: the initial state
|
||
|
bool final_states[state_max]; // X_m: the set of marked states
|
||
|
};
|
||
|
|
||
|
struct automaton aut = {
|
||
|
.state_names = {
|
||
|
"preemptive",
|
||
|
"non_preemptive"
|
||
|
},
|
||
|
.event_names = {
|
||
|
"preempt_disable",
|
||
|
"preempt_enable",
|
||
|
"sched_waking"
|
||
|
},
|
||
|
.function = {
|
||
|
{ non_preemptive, INVALID_STATE, INVALID_STATE },
|
||
|
{ INVALID_STATE, preemptive, non_preemptive },
|
||
|
},
|
||
|
.initial_state = preemptive,
|
||
|
.final_states = { 1, 0 },
|
||
|
};
|
||
|
|
||
|
The *transition function* is represented as a matrix of states (lines) and
|
||
|
events (columns), and so the function *f* : *X* x *E* -> *X* can be solved
|
||
|
in O(1). For example::
|
||
|
|
||
|
next_state = automaton_wip.function[curr_state][event];
|
||
|
|
||
|
Graphviz .dot format
|
||
|
--------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Graphviz open-source tool can produce the graphical representation
|
||
|
of an automaton using the (textual) DOT language as the source code.
|
||
|
The DOT format is widely used and can be converted to many other formats.
|
||
|
|
||
|
For example, this is the 'wip' model in DOT::
|
||
|
|
||
|
digraph state_automaton {
|
||
|
{node [shape = circle] "non_preemptive"};
|
||
|
{node [shape = plaintext, style=invis, label=""] "__init_preemptive"};
|
||
|
{node [shape = doublecircle] "preemptive"};
|
||
|
{node [shape = circle] "preemptive"};
|
||
|
"__init_preemptive" -> "preemptive";
|
||
|
"non_preemptive" [label = "non_preemptive"];
|
||
|
"non_preemptive" -> "non_preemptive" [ label = "sched_waking" ];
|
||
|
"non_preemptive" -> "preemptive" [ label = "preempt_enable" ];
|
||
|
"preemptive" [label = "preemptive"];
|
||
|
"preemptive" -> "non_preemptive" [ label = "preempt_disable" ];
|
||
|
{ rank = min ;
|
||
|
"__init_preemptive";
|
||
|
"preemptive";
|
||
|
}
|
||
|
}
|
||
|
|
||
|
This DOT format can be transformed into a bitmap or vectorial image
|
||
|
using the dot utility, or into an ASCII art using graph-easy. For
|
||
|
instance::
|
||
|
|
||
|
$ dot -Tsvg -o wip.svg wip.dot
|
||
|
$ graph-easy wip.dot > wip.txt
|
||
|
|
||
|
dot2c
|
||
|
-----
|
||
|
|
||
|
dot2c is a utility that can parse a .dot file containing an automaton as
|
||
|
in the example above and automatically convert it to the C representation
|
||
|
presented in [3].
|
||
|
|
||
|
For example, having the previous 'wip' model into a file named 'wip.dot',
|
||
|
the following command will transform the .dot file into the C
|
||
|
representation (previously shown) in the 'wip.h' file::
|
||
|
|
||
|
$ dot2c wip.dot > wip.h
|
||
|
|
||
|
The 'wip.h' content is the code sample in section 'Deterministic Automaton
|
||
|
in C'.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Remarks
|
||
|
-------
|
||
|
|
||
|
The automata formalism allows modeling discrete event systems (DES) in
|
||
|
multiple formats, suitable for different applications/users.
|
||
|
|
||
|
For example, the formal description using set theory is better suitable
|
||
|
for automata operations, while the graphical format for human interpretation;
|
||
|
and computer languages for machine execution.
|
||
|
|
||
|
References
|
||
|
----------
|
||
|
|
||
|
Many textbooks cover automata formalism. For a brief introduction see::
|
||
|
|
||
|
O'Regan, Gerard. Concise guide to software engineering. Springer,
|
||
|
Cham, 2017.
|
||
|
|
||
|
For a detailed description, including operations, and application on Discrete
|
||
|
Event Systems (DES), see::
|
||
|
|
||
|
Cassandras, Christos G., and Stephane Lafortune, eds. Introduction to discrete
|
||
|
event systems. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2008.
|
||
|
|
||
|
For the C representation in kernel, see::
|
||
|
|
||
|
De Oliveira, Daniel Bristot; Cucinotta, Tommaso; De Oliveira, Romulo
|
||
|
Silva. Efficient formal verification for the Linux kernel. In:
|
||
|
International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods.
|
||
|
Springer, Cham, 2019. p. 315-332.
|