An official website of the United States government
Many critical software systems developed in C utilize compile-time configurability. The many possible configurations of this software make bug detection through static analysis difficult. While variability-aware static analyses have been developed, there remains a gap between those and state-of-the-art static bug detection tools. In order to collect data on how such tools may perform and to develop real-world benchmarks, we present a way to leverage configuration sampling, off-the-shelf “variability-oblivious” bug detectors, and automatic feature identification techniques to simulate a variability-aware analysis. We instantiate our approach using four popular static analysis tools on three highly configurable, real-world C projects, obtaining 36,061 warnings, 80% of which are variability warnings. We analyze the warnings we collect from these experiments, finding that most results are variability warnings of a variety of kinds such as NULL dereference. We then manually investigate these warnings to produce a benchmark of 77 confirmed true bugs (52 of which are variability bugs) useful for future development of variability-aware analyses.
more »
« less
Toward detection and characterization of variability bugs in configurable C software: an empirical study
Variability in C software is a useful tool, but critical bugs that only exist in certain configurations are easily missed by conventional debugging techniques. Even with a small number of features, the configuration space of configurable software is too large to analyze exhaustively. Variability-aware static analysis for bug detection is being developed, but remains at too early a stage to be fully usable in real-world C programs. In this work, we present a methodology of finding variability bugs by combining variability-oblivious bug detectors, static analysis of build processes, and dynamic feature interaction inference. We further present an empirical study in which we test our methodology on two highly configurable C programs. We found our methodology to be effective, finding 88 true bugs between the two programs, of which 64 were variability bugs.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10108716
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering
- Volume:
- Companion Proceedings
- ISSN:
- 0270-5257
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Increasing studies have shown bugs in multi-language software as a critical loophole in modern software quality assurance, especially those induced by language interactions (i.e., multilingual bugs). Yet existing tool support for bug detection/localization remains largely limited to single-language software, despite the long-standing prevalence of multi-language systems in various real-world software domains. Extant static/dynamic analysis and deep learning (DL) based approaches all face major challenges in addressing multilingual bugs. In this paper, we present xLoc, a DL-based technique/tool for detecting and localizing multilingual bugs. Motivated by results of our bug-characteristics study on top locations of multilingual bugs, xLoc first learns the general knowledge relevant to differentiating various multilingual control-flow structures. This is achieved by pre-training a Transformer model with customized position encoding against novel objectives. Then, xLoc learns task-specific knowledge for the task of multilingual bug detection/localization, through another new position encoding scheme (based on cross-language API vicinity) that allows for the model to attend particularly to control-flow constructs that bear most multilingual bugs during fine-tuning. We have implemented xLoc for Python-C software and curated a dataset of 3,770 buggy and 15,884 non-buggy Python-C samples, which enabled our extensive evaluation of xLoc against two state-of-the-art baselines: fine-tuned CodeT5 and zero-shot ChatGPT. Our results show that xLoc achieved 94.98% F1 and 87.24%@Top-1 accuracy, which are significantly (up to 162.88% and 511.75%) higher than the baselines. Ablation studies further confirmed significant contributions of each of the novel design elements in xLoc. With respective bug-location characteristics and labeled bug datasets for fine-tuning, our design may be applied to other language combinations beyond Python-C.more » « less
-
Highly-configurable software underpins much of our computing infrastructure. It enables extensive reuse, but opens the door to broken configuration specifications. The configuration specification language, Kconfig, is designed to prevent invalid configurations of the Linux kernel from being built. However, the astronomical size of the configuration space for Linux makes finding specification bugs difficult by hand or with random testing. In this paper, we introduce a software model checking framework for building Kconfig static analysis tools. We develop a formal semantics of the Kconfig language and implement the semantics in a symbolic evaluator called kclause that models Kconfig behavior as logical formulas. We then design and implement a bug finder, called kismet, that takes kclause models and leverages automated theorem proving to find unmet dependency bugs. kismet is evaluated for its precision, performance, and impact on kernel development for a recent version of Linux, which has over 140,000 lines of Kconfig across 28 architecture-specific specifications. Our evaluation finds 781 bugs (151 when considering sharing among Kconfig specifications) with 100% precision, spending between 37 and 90 minutes for each Kconfig specification, although it misses some bugs due to underapproximation. Compared to random testing, kismet finds substantially more true positive bugs in a fraction of the time.more » « less
-
In spite of decades of research in bug detection tools, there is a surprising dearth of ground-truth corpora that can be used to evaluate the efficacy of such tools. Recently, systems such as LAVA and EvilCoder have been proposed to automatically inject bugs into software to quickly generate large bug corpora, but the bugs created so far differ from naturally occurring bugs in a number of ways. In this work, we propose a new automated bug injection system, Apocalypse, that uses formal techniques—symbolic execution, constraint-based program synthesis and model counting—to automatically inject fair (can potentially be discovered by current bug-detection tools), deep (requiring a long sequence of dependencies to be satisfied to fire), uncorrelated (each bug behaving independent of others), reproducible (a trigger input being available) and rare (can be triggered by only a few program inputs) bugs in large software code bases. In our evaluation, we inject bugs into thirty Coreutils programs as well as the TCAS test suite. We find that bugs synthesized by Apocalypse are highly realistic under a variety of metrics, that they do not favor a particular bug-finding strategy (unlike bugs produced by LAVA), and that they are more difficult to find than manually injected bugs, requiring up around 240× more tests to discover with a state-of-the-art symbolic execution tool.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Fuzz testing has been used to find bugs in programs since the 1990s, but despite decades of dedicated research, there is still no consensus on which fuzzing techniques work best. One reason for this is the paucity of ground truth: bugs in real programs with known root causes and triggering inputs are difficult to collect at a meaningful scale. Bug injection technologies that add synthetic bugs into real programs seem to offer a solution, but the differences in finding these synthetic bugs versus organic bugs have not previously been explored at a large scale. Using over 80 years of CPU time, we ran eight fuzzers across 20 targets from the Rode0day bug-finding competition and the LAVA-M corpus. Experiments were standardized with respect to compute resources and metrics gathered. These experiments show differences in fuzzer performance as well as the impact of various configuration options. For instance, it is clear that integrating symbolic execution with mutational fuzzing is very effective and that using dictionaries improves performance. Other conclusions are less clear-cut; for example, no one fuzzer beat all others on all tests. It is noteworthy that no fuzzer found any organic bugs (i.e., one reported in a CVE), despite 50 such bugs being available for discovery in the fuzzing corpus. A close analysis of results revealed a possible explanation: a dramatic difference between where synthetic and organic bugs live with respect to the "main path" discovered by fuzzers. We find that recent updates to bug injection systems have made synthetic bugs more difficult to discover, but they are still significantly easier to find than organic bugs in our target programs. Finally, this study identifies flaws in bug injection techniques and suggests a number of axes along which synthetic bugs should be improved.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-Companion.2019.00064
