Search for: All records

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

As big data analytics become increasingly popular, data-intensive scalable computing (DISC) systems help address the scalability issue of handling large data. However, automated testing for such data-centric applications is challenging, because data is often incomplete, continuously evolving, and hard to know a priori. Fuzz testing has been proven to be highly effective in other domains such as security; however, it is nontrivial to apply such traditional fuzzing to big data analytics directly for three reasons: (1) the long latency of DISC systems prohibits the applicability of fuzzing: naïve fuzzing would spend 98% of the time in setting up a test environment; (2) conventional branch coverage is unlikely to scale to DISC applications because most binary code comes from the framework implementation such as Apache Spark; and (3) random bit or byte level mutations can hardly generate meaningful data, which fails to reveal real-world application bugs. We propose a novel coverage-guided fuzz testing tool for big data analytics, called BigFuzz. The key essence of our approach is that: (a) we focus on exercising application logic as opposed to increasing framework code coverage by abstracting the DISC framework using specifications. BigFuzz performs automated source to source transformations to construct an equivalent DISCmore »application suitable for fast test generation, and (b) we design schema-aware data mutation operators based on our in-depth study of DISC application error types. BigFuzz speeds up the fuzzing time by 78 to 1477X compared to random fuzzing, improves application code coverage by 20% to 271%, and achieves 33% to 157% improvement in detecting application errors. When compared to the state of the art that uses symbolic execution to test big data analytics, BigFuzz is applicable to twice more programs and can find 81% more bugs.« less

Fuzz testing has been gaining ground recently with substantial efforts devoted to the area. Typically, fuzzers take a set of seed inputs and leverage random mutations to continually improve the inputs with respect to a cost, e.g. program code coverage, to discover vulnerabilities or bugs. Following this methodology, fuzzers are very good at generating unstructured inputs that achieve high coverage. However fuzzers are less effective when the inputs are structured, say they conform to an input grammar. Due to the nature of random mutations, the overwhelming abundance of inputs generated by this common fuzzing practice often adversely hinders the effectiveness and efficiency of fuzzers on grammar-aware applications. The problem of testing becomes even harder, when the goal is not only to achieve increased code coverage, but also to nd complex vulnerabilities related to other cost measures, say high resource consumption in an application. We propose Saffron an adaptive grammar-based fuzzing approach to effectively and efficiently generate inputs that expose expensive executions in programs. Saffron takes as input a user-provided grammar, which describes the input space of the program under analysis, and uses it to generate test inputs. Saffron assumes that the grammar description is approximate since precisely describing the inputmore »program space is often difficult as a program may accept unintended inputs due to e.g., errors in parsing. Yet these inputs may reveal worst-case complexity vulnerabilities. The novelty of Saffron is then twofold: (1) Given the user-provided grammar, Saffron attempts to discover whether the program accepts unexpected inputs outside of the provided grammar, and if so, it repairs the grammar via grammar mutations. The repaired grammar serves as a specification of the actual inputs accepted by the application. (2) Based on the refined grammar, it generates concrete test inputs. It starts by treating every production rule in the grammar with equal probability of being used for generating concrete inputs. It then adaptively refines the probabilities along the way by increasing the probabilities for rules that have been used to generate inputs that improve a cost, e.g., code coverage or arbitrary user-defined cost. Evaluation results show that Saffron significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines.« less