skip to main content
Explore Scholarly Publications and Datasets in the NSF-PAR

Title: Automated bug localization in JIT compilers
Many widely-deployed modern programming systems use just-in-time (JIT) compilers to improve performance. The size and complexity of JIT-based systems, combined with the dynamic nature of JIT-compiler optimizations, make it challenging to locate and fix JIT compiler bugs quickly. At the same time, JIT compiler bugs can result in exploitable security vulnerabilities, making rapid bug localization important. Existing work on automated bug localization focuses on static code, i.e., code that is not generated at runtime, and so cannot handle bugs in JIT compilers that generate incorrect code during optimization. This paper describes an approach to automated bug localization in JIT compilers, down to the level of distinct optimization phases, starting with a single initial Proof-of-Concept (PoC) input that demonstrates the bug. Experiments using a prototype implementation of our ideas on Google’s V8 JavaScript interpreter and TurboFan JIT compiler demonstrates that it can successfully identify buggy optimization phases.
Authors:
;
Award ID(s):
1908313
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10280821
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN/SIGOPS International Conference on Virtual Execution Environments (VEE ’21)
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
153 to 164
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ( , Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on the State Of the Art in Program Analysis)
    Gonnord, Laure ; Titolo, Laura (Ed.)
    Just-in-Time (JIT) compilers are widely used to improve the performance of interpreter-based language implementations by creating optimized code at runtime. However, bugs in the JIT compiler’s code manipulation and optimization can result in the generation of incorrect code. Such bugs can be difficult to diagnose and fix, and can result in exploitable vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, existing approaches to automatic bug localization do not carry over well to such bugs. This paper discusses a different approach to analyzing JIT compiler optimization behaviors, based on using dynamic analysis to construct abstract models of the JIT compiler’s optimizer and back end. By comparing the models obtained for buggy and non-buggy executions of the JIT compiler, we can pinpoint the components of the JIT compiler’s internal representation that have been affected by the bug; this can then be mapped back to identify the buggy code. Our ex- periments with two real bugs for Google V8 JIT compiler, TurboFan, show the utility and practicality of our approach.
  2. ; ( , 29th International Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualization (GD 2021))
    Just-in-time (JIT) compilers are used by many modern programming systems in order to improve performance. Bugs in JIT compilers provide exploitable security vulnerabilities and debugging them is difficult as they are large, complex, and dynamic. Current debugging and visualization tools deal with static code and are not suitable in this domain. We describe a new approach for simplifying the large and complex intermediate representation, generated by a JIT compiler and visualize it with a metro map metaphor to aid developers in debugging.
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ( , ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering)
    Compiler bugs are extremely harmful, but are notoriously difficult to debug because compiler bugs usually produce few debugging information. Given a bug-triggering test program for a compiler, hundreds of compiler files are usually involved during compilation, and thus are suspect buggy files. Although there are lots of automated bug isolation techniques, they are not applicable to compilers due to the scalability or effectiveness problem. To solve this problem, in this paper, we transform the compiler bug isolation problem into a search problem, i.e., searching for a set of effective witness test programs that are able to eliminate innocent compiler files from suspects. Based on this intuition, we propose an automated compiler bug isolation technique, DiWi, which (1) proposes a heuristic-based search strategy to generate such a set of effective witness test programs via applying our designed witnessing mutation rules to the given failing test program, and (2) compares their coverage to isolate bugs following the practice of spectrum-based bug isolation. The experimental results on 90 real bugs from popular GCC and LLVM compilers show that DiWi effectively isolates 66.67%/78.89% bugs within Top-10/Top-20 compiler files, significantly outperforming state-of-the-art bug isolation techniques.
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ( , 19th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories)
    Compiler fuzzing tools such as Csmith have uncovered many bugs in compilers by randomly sampling programs from a generative model. The success of these tools is often attributed to their ability to generate unexpected corner case inputs that developers tend to overlook during manual testing. At the same time, their chaotic nature makes fuzzer-generated test cases notoriously hard to interpret, which has lead to the creation of input simplification tools such as C-Reduce (for C compiler bugs). In until now unrelated work, researchers have also shown that human-written software tends to be rather repetitive and predictable to language models. Studies show that developers deliberately write more predictable code, whereas code with bugs is relatively unpredictable. In this study, we ask the natural questions of whether this high predictability property of code also, and perhaps counter-intuitively, applies to fuzzer-generated code. That is, we investigate whether fuzzer-generated compiler inputs are deemed unpredictable by a language model built on human-written code and surprisingly conclude that it is not. To the contrary, Csmith fuzzer-generated programs are more predictable on a per-token basis than human-written C programs. Furthermore, bug-triggering tended to be more predictable still than random inputs, and the C-Reduce minimization tool did notmore »substantially increase this predictability. Rather, we find that bug-triggering inputs are unpredictable relative to Csmith's own generative model. This is encouraging; our results suggest promising research directions on incorporating predictability metrics in the fuzzing and reduction tools themselves.« less
  5. ; ; ( , IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering)
    Compiler bugs can be disastrous since they could affect all the software systems built on the buggy compilers. Meanwhile, diagnosing compiler bugs is extremely challenging since usually limited debugging information is available and a large number of compiler files can be suspicious. More specifically, when compiling a given bug-triggering test program, hundreds of compiler files are usually involved, and can all be treated as suspicious buggy files. To facilitate compiler debugging, in this paper we propose the first reinforcement compiler bug isolation approach via structural mutation, called RecBi. For a given bug-triggering test program, RecBi first augments traditional local mutation operators with structural ones to transform it into a set of passing test programs. Since not all the passing test programs can help isolate compiler bugs effectively, RecBi further leverages reinforcement learning to intelligently guide the process of passing test program generation. Then, RecBi ranks all the suspicious files by analyzing the compiler execution traces of the generated passing test programs and the given failing test program following the practice of compiler bug isolation. The experimental results on 120 real bugs from two most popular C open-source compilers, i.e., GCC and LLVM, show that RecBi is able to isolate aboutmore »23%/58%/78% bugs within Top-1/Top-5/Top-10 compiler files, and significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art compiler bug isolation approach by improving 92.86%/55.56%/25.68% isolation effectiveness in terms of Top-1/Top-5/Top-10 results.« less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email