Find Bugs in Static Bug Finders

Abstract

Static bug finders (also known as static code analyzers, e.g., Find-Bugs, SonarQube) have been widely-adopted by developers to find bugs in real-world software projects. They leverage predefined heuristic static analysis rules to scan source code or binary code of a software project, and report violations to these rules as warnings to be verified. However, the advantages of static bug finders are overshadowed by such issues as uncovered obvious bugs, false positives, etc. To improve these tools, many techniques have been proposed to filter out false positives reported or design new static analysis rules. Nevertheless, the under-performance of bug finders can also be caused by the incorrectness of current rules contained in the static bug finders, which is not explored yet. In this work, we propose a differential testing approach to detect bugs in the rules of four widely-used static bug finders, i.e., SonarQube, PMD, SpotBugs, and ErrorProne, and conduct a qualitative study about the bugs found. The experiment on 2,728 open source projects reveals 46 bugs in the static bug finders, among which 30 are fixed or confirmed and the left are awaiting confirmation. We also summarize 13 bug patterns in the static analysis rules based on their context and root causes, which can serve as the checklist for designing and implementing other rules and/or in other tools. This study indicates that the commonly-used static bug finders are not as reliable as they might have been envisaged. It not only demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach, but also highlights the need to continue improving the reliability of the static bug finders.