Data races are notorious concurrency bugs which can cause severe problems, including random crashes and corrupted execution results. However, existing data race detection tools are still challenging for users to use. It takes a significant amount of effort for users to install, configure and properly use a tool. A single tool often cannot find all the bugs in a program. Requiring users to use multiple tools is often impracticable and not productive because of the differences in tool interfaces and report formats.
In this paper, we present a cloud-based, service-oriented design and implementation of a race detection service (RDS)1 to detect data races in parallel programs. RDS integrates multiple data race detection tools into a single cloud-based service via a REST API. It defines a standard JSON format to represent data race detection results, facilitating producing user-friendly reports, aggregating output of multiple tools, as well as being easily processed by other tools. RDS also defines a set of policies for aggregating outputs from multiple tools. RDS significantly simplifies the workflow of using data race detection tools and improves the report quality and productivity of performing race detection for parallel programs. Our evaluation shows that RDS can deliver more accurate results with much less effort from users, when compared with the traditional way of using any individual tools. Using four selected tools and DataRaceBench, RDS improves the Adjusted F-1 scores by 8.8% and 12.6% over the best and the average scores, respectively. For the NAS Parallel Benchmark, RDS improves 35% of the adjusted accuracy compared to the average of the tools.
Our work studies a new approach of composing software tools for parallel computing via a service-oriented architecture. The same approach and framework can be used to create metaservice for compilers, performance tools, auto-tuning tools, and so on.
more »
« less
Arbitrar: User-Guided API Misuse Detection
Software APIs exhibit rich diversity and complexity which not only renders them a common source of programming errors but also hinders program analysis tools for checking them. Such tools either expect a precise API specification, which requires program analysis expertise, or presume that correct API usages follow simple idioms that can be automatically mined from code, which suffers from poor accuracy. We propose a new approach that allows regular programmers to find API misuses. Our approach interacts with the user to classify valid and invalid usages of each target API method. It minimizes user burden by employing an active learning algorithm that ranks API usages by their likelihood of being invalid. We implemented our approach in a tool called ARBITRAR for C/C++ programs, and applied it to check the uses of 18 API methods in 21 large real-world programs, including OpenSSL and Linux Kernel. Within just 3 rounds of user interaction on average per API method, ARBITRAR found 40 new bugs, with patches accepted for 18 of them. Moreover, ARBITRAR finds all known bugs reported by a state-of-the-art tool APISAN in a benchmark suite comprising 92 bugs with a false positive rate of only 51.5% compared to APISAN’s 87.9%
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1836936
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10312079
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Static analysis is a proven technique for catching bugs during software development. However, analysis tooling must approximate, both theoretically and in the interest of practicality. False positives are a pervading manifestation of such approximations—tool configuration and customization is therefore crucial for usability and directing analysis behavior. To suppress false positives, developers readily disable bug checks or insert comments that suppress spurious bug reports. Existing work shows that these mechanisms fall short of developer needs and present a significant pain point for using or adopting analyses. We draw on the insight that an analysis user always has one notable ability to influence analysis behavior regardless of analyzer options and implementation: modifying their program. We present a new technique for automated, generic, and temporary code changes that tailor to suppress spurious analysis errors. We adopt a rule-based approach where simple, declarative templates describe general syntactic changes for code patterns that are known to be problematic for the analyzer. Our technique promotes program transformation as a general primitive for improving the fidelity of analysis reports (we treat any given analyzer as a black box). We evaluate using five different static analyzers supporting three different languages (C, Java, and PHP) on large, real world programs (up to 800KLOC). We show that our approach is effective in sidestepping long-standing and complex issues in analysis implementations.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
-
Recent trends in software-defined networking have extended network programmability to the data plane. Unfortunately, the chance of introducing bugs increases significantly. Verification can help prevent bugs by assuring that the program does not violate its requirements. Although research on the verification of P4 programs is very active, we still need tools to make easier for programmers to express properties and to rapidly verify complex invariants. In this paper, we leverage assertions and symbolic execution to propose a more general P4 verification approach. Developers annotate P4 programs with assertions expressing general network correctness properties; the result is transformed into C models and all possible paths symbolically executed. We implement a prototype, and use it to show the feasibility of the verification approach. Because symbolic execution does not scale well, we investigate a set of techniques to speed up the process for the specific case of P4 programs. We use the prototype implemented to show the gains provided by three speed up techniques (use of constraints, program slicing, parallelization), and experiment with different compiler optimization choices. We show our tool can uncover a broad range of bugs, and can do it in less than a minute considering various P4 applications.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1109/SP40001.2021.00090
