Patanamon Thongtanunam, Shane McIntosh, A. Hassan, Hajimu Iida
Code ownership establishes a chain of responsibility for modules in large software systems. Although prior work uncovers a link between code ownership heuristics and software quality, these heuristics rely solely on the authorship of code changes. In addition to authoring code changes, developers also make important contributions to a module by reviewing code changes. Indeed, recent work shows that reviewers are highly active in modern code review processes, often suggesting alternative solutions or providing updates to the code changes. In this paper, we complement traditional code ownership heuristics using code review activity. Through a case study of six releases of the large Qt and OpenStack systems, we find that: (1) 67%-86% of developers did not author any code changes for a module, but still actively contributed by reviewing 21%-39% of the code changes, (2) code ownership heuristics that are aware of reviewing activity share a relationship with software quality, and (3) the proportion of reviewers without expertise shares a strong, increasing relationship with the likelihood of having post-release defects. Our results suggest that reviewing activity captures an important aspect of code ownership, and should be included in approximations of it in future studies.
{"title":"Revisiting Code Ownership and Its Relationship with Software Quality in the Scope of Modern Code Review","authors":"Patanamon Thongtanunam, Shane McIntosh, A. Hassan, Hajimu Iida","doi":"10.1145/2884781.2884852","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884852","url":null,"abstract":"Code ownership establishes a chain of responsibility for modules in large software systems. Although prior work uncovers a link between code ownership heuristics and software quality, these heuristics rely solely on the authorship of code changes. In addition to authoring code changes, developers also make important contributions to a module by reviewing code changes. Indeed, recent work shows that reviewers are highly active in modern code review processes, often suggesting alternative solutions or providing updates to the code changes. In this paper, we complement traditional code ownership heuristics using code review activity. Through a case study of six releases of the large Qt and OpenStack systems, we find that: (1) 67%-86% of developers did not author any code changes for a module, but still actively contributed by reviewing 21%-39% of the code changes, (2) code ownership heuristics that are aware of reviewing activity share a relationship with software quality, and (3) the proportion of reviewers without expertise shares a strong, increasing relationship with the likelihood of having post-release defects. Our results suggest that reviewing activity captures an important aspect of code ownership, and should be included in approximations of it in future studies.","PeriodicalId":6485,"journal":{"name":"2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"24 1","pages":"1039-1050"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78784161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
D. Fava, Daniel G. Shapiro, J. Osborn, Martin Schäf, E. J. Whitehead
Invariant discovery is one of the central problems in software verification. This paper reports on an approach that addresses this problem in a novel way; it crowdsources logical expressions for likely invariants by turning invariant discovery into a computer game. The game, called Binary Fission, employs a classification model. In it, players compose preconditions by separating program states that preserve or violate program assertions. The players have no special expertise in formal methods or programming, and are not specifically aware they are solving verification tasks. We show that Binary Fission players discover concise, general, novel, and human readable program preconditions. Our proof of concept suggests that crowdsourcing offers a feasible and promising path towards the practical application of verification technology.
{"title":"Crowdsourcing Program Preconditions via a Classification Game","authors":"D. Fava, Daniel G. Shapiro, J. Osborn, Martin Schäf, E. J. Whitehead","doi":"10.1145/2884781.2884865","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884865","url":null,"abstract":"Invariant discovery is one of the central problems in software verification. This paper reports on an approach that addresses this problem in a novel way; it crowdsources logical expressions for likely invariants by turning invariant discovery into a computer game. The game, called Binary Fission, employs a classification model. In it, players compose preconditions by separating program states that preserve or violate program assertions. The players have no special expertise in formal methods or programming, and are not specifically aware they are solving verification tasks. We show that Binary Fission players discover concise, general, novel, and human readable program preconditions. Our proof of concept suggests that crowdsourcing offers a feasible and promising path towards the practical application of verification technology.","PeriodicalId":6485,"journal":{"name":"2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"6 1","pages":"1086-1096"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83177331","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Conventional concolic testing has been used to provide high coverage of paths in statically typed languages. While it has also been applied in the context of JavaScript (JS) programs, we observe that applying concolic testing to dynamically-typed JS programs involves tackling unique problems to ensure scalability. In particular, a naive type-agnostic extension of concolic testing to JS programs causes generation of large number of inputs. Consequently, many executions operate on undefined values and repeatedly explore same paths resulting in redundant tests, thus diminishing the scalability of testing drastically. In this paper, we address this problem by proposing a simple yet effective approach that incorporates type-awareness intelligently in conventional concolic testing to reduce the number of generated inputs for JS programs. We extend our approach inter-procedurally by generating preconditions for each function that provide a summary of the relation between the variable types and paths. Employing the function preconditions when testing reduces the number of inputs generated even further. We implement our ideas and validate it on a number of open-source JS programs (and libraries). For a significant percentage (on average 50%) of the functions, we observe that type-aware concolic testing generates a minuscule percentage (less than 5%) of the inputs as compared to conventional concolic testing approach implemented on top of Jalangi. On average, this approach achieves over 97% of line coverage and over 94% of branch coverage for all the functions across all benchmarks. Moreover, the use of function preconditions reduces the number of inputs generated by 50%. We also demonstrate the use of function preconditions in automatically avoiding real crashes due to incorrectly typed objects.
{"title":"Type-Aware Concolic Testing of JavaScript Programs","authors":"Monika Dhok, M. Ramanathan, Nishant Sinha","doi":"10.1145/2884781.2884859","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884859","url":null,"abstract":"Conventional concolic testing has been used to provide high coverage of paths in statically typed languages. While it has also been applied in the context of JavaScript (JS) programs, we observe that applying concolic testing to dynamically-typed JS programs involves tackling unique problems to ensure scalability. In particular, a naive type-agnostic extension of concolic testing to JS programs causes generation of large number of inputs. Consequently, many executions operate on undefined values and repeatedly explore same paths resulting in redundant tests, thus diminishing the scalability of testing drastically. In this paper, we address this problem by proposing a simple yet effective approach that incorporates type-awareness intelligently in conventional concolic testing to reduce the number of generated inputs for JS programs. We extend our approach inter-procedurally by generating preconditions for each function that provide a summary of the relation between the variable types and paths. Employing the function preconditions when testing reduces the number of inputs generated even further. We implement our ideas and validate it on a number of open-source JS programs (and libraries). For a significant percentage (on average 50%) of the functions, we observe that type-aware concolic testing generates a minuscule percentage (less than 5%) of the inputs as compared to conventional concolic testing approach implemented on top of Jalangi. On average, this approach achieves over 97% of line coverage and over 94% of branch coverage for all the functions across all benchmarks. Moreover, the use of function preconditions reduces the number of inputs generated by 50%. We also demonstrate the use of function preconditions in automatically avoiding real crashes due to incorrectly typed objects.","PeriodicalId":6485,"journal":{"name":"2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"43 1","pages":"168-179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86007833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reactive programming is a recent programming technique that provides dedicated language abstractions for reactive software. Reactive programming relieves developers from manually updating outputs when the inputs of a computation change, it overcomes a number of well-know issues of the Observer design pattern, and it makes programs more comprehensible. Unfortunately, complementing the new paradigm with proper tools is a vastly unexplored area. Hence, as of now, developers can embrace reactive programming only at the cost of a more challenging development process. In this paper, we investigate a primary issue in the field: debugging programs in the reactive style. We analyze the problem of debugging reactive programs, show that the reactive style requires a paradigm shift in the concepts needed for debugging, and propose RP Debugging, a methodology for effectively debugging reactive programs. These ideas are implemented in Reactive Inspector, a debugger for reactive programs integrated with the Eclipse Scala IDE. Evaluation based on a controlled experiment shows that RP Debugging outperforms traditional debugging techniques.
{"title":"Debugging for Reactive Programming","authors":"G. Salvaneschi, M. Mezini","doi":"10.1145/2884781.2884815","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884815","url":null,"abstract":"Reactive programming is a recent programming technique that provides dedicated language abstractions for reactive software. Reactive programming relieves developers from manually updating outputs when the inputs of a computation change, it overcomes a number of well-know issues of the Observer design pattern, and it makes programs more comprehensible. Unfortunately, complementing the new paradigm with proper tools is a vastly unexplored area. Hence, as of now, developers can embrace reactive programming only at the cost of a more challenging development process. In this paper, we investigate a primary issue in the field: debugging programs in the reactive style. We analyze the problem of debugging reactive programs, show that the reactive style requires a paradigm shift in the concepts needed for debugging, and propose RP Debugging, a methodology for effectively debugging reactive programs. These ideas are implemented in Reactive Inspector, a debugger for reactive programs integrated with the Eclipse Scala IDE. Evaluation based on a controlled experiment shows that RP Debugging outperforms traditional debugging techniques.","PeriodicalId":6485,"journal":{"name":"2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"30 1","pages":"796-807"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84287242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Konrad Jamrozik, Philipp von Styp-Rekowsky, A. Zeller
We present sandbox mining, a technique to confine an application to resources accessed during automatic testing. Sandbox mining first explores software behavior by means of automatic test generation, and extracts the set of resources accessed during these tests. This set is then used as a sandbox, blocking access to resources not used during testing. The mined sandbox thus protects against behavior changes such as the activation of latent malware, infections, targeted attacks, or malicious updates. The use of test generation makes sandbox mining a fully automatic process that can be run by vendors and end users alike. Our BOXMATE prototype requires less than one hour to extract a sandbox from an Android app, with few to no confirmations required for frequently used functionality.
{"title":"Mining Sandboxes","authors":"Konrad Jamrozik, Philipp von Styp-Rekowsky, A. Zeller","doi":"10.1145/2884781.2884782","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884782","url":null,"abstract":"We present sandbox mining, a technique to confine an application to resources accessed during automatic testing. Sandbox mining first explores software behavior by means of automatic test generation, and extracts the set of resources accessed during these tests. This set is then used as a sandbox, blocking access to resources not used during testing. The mined sandbox thus protects against behavior changes such as the activation of latent malware, infections, targeted attacks, or malicious updates. The use of test generation makes sandbox mining a fully automatic process that can be run by vendors and end users alike. Our BOXMATE prototype requires less than one hour to extract a sandbox from an Android app, with few to no confirmations required for frequently used functionality.","PeriodicalId":6485,"journal":{"name":"2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"22 1","pages":"37-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84360646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Empirical software engineering has produced a steady stream of evidence-based results concerning the factors that affect important outcomes such as cost, quality, and interval. However, programmers often also have strongly-held a priori opinions about these issues. These opinions are important, since developers are highlytrained professionals whose beliefs would doubtless affect their practice. As in evidence-based medicine, disseminating empirical findings to developers is a key step in ensuring that the findings impact practice. In this paper, we describe a case study, on the prior beliefs of developers at Microsoft, and the relationship of these beliefs to actual empirical data on the projects in which these developers work. Our findings are that a) programmers do indeed have very strong beliefs on certain topics b) their beliefs are primarily formed based on personal experience, rather than on findings in empirical research and c) beliefs can vary with each project, but do not necessarily correspond with actual evidence in that project. Our findings suggest that more effort should be taken to disseminate empirical findings to developers and that more in-depth study the interplay of belief and evidence in software practice is needed.
{"title":"Belief & Evidence in Empirical Software Engineering","authors":"Premkumar T. Devanbu, Thomas Zimmermann, C. Bird","doi":"10.1145/2884781.2884812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884812","url":null,"abstract":"Empirical software engineering has produced a steady stream of evidence-based results concerning the factors that affect important outcomes such as cost, quality, and interval. However, programmers often also have strongly-held a priori opinions about these issues. These opinions are important, since developers are highlytrained professionals whose beliefs would doubtless affect their practice. As in evidence-based medicine, disseminating empirical findings to developers is a key step in ensuring that the findings impact practice. In this paper, we describe a case study, on the prior beliefs of developers at Microsoft, and the relationship of these beliefs to actual empirical data on the projects in which these developers work. Our findings are that a) programmers do indeed have very strong beliefs on certain topics b) their beliefs are primarily formed based on personal experience, rather than on findings in empirical research and c) beliefs can vary with each project, but do not necessarily correspond with actual evidence in that project. Our findings suggest that more effort should be taken to disseminate empirical findings to developers and that more in-depth study the interplay of belief and evidence in software practice is needed.","PeriodicalId":6485,"journal":{"name":"2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"2 1","pages":"108-119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81756520","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Rocky Slavin, Xiaoyin Wang, M. Hosseini, James Hester, R. Krishnan, Jaspreet Bhatia, T. Breaux, Jianwei Niu
Mobile applications frequently access sensitive personal informa- tion to meet user or business requirements. Because such informa- tion is sensitive in general, regulators increasingly require mobile- app developers to publish privacy policies that describe what infor- mation is collected. Furthermore, regulators have fined companies when these policies are inconsistent with the actual data practices of mobile apps. To help mobile-app developers check their pri- vacy policies against their apps’ code for consistency, we propose a semi-automated framework that consists of a policy terminology- API method map that links policy phrases to API methods that pro- duce sensitive information, and information flow analysis to detect misalignments. We present an implementation of our framework based on a privacy-policy-phrase ontology and a collection of map- pings from API methods to policy phrases. Our empirical eval- uation on 477 top Android apps discovered 341 potential privacy policy violations.
{"title":"Toward a Framework for Detecting Privacy Policy Violations in Android Application Code","authors":"Rocky Slavin, Xiaoyin Wang, M. Hosseini, James Hester, R. Krishnan, Jaspreet Bhatia, T. Breaux, Jianwei Niu","doi":"10.1145/2884781.2884855","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884855","url":null,"abstract":"Mobile applications frequently access sensitive personal informa- tion to meet user or business requirements. Because such informa- tion is sensitive in general, regulators increasingly require mobile- app developers to publish privacy policies that describe what infor- mation is collected. Furthermore, regulators have fined companies when these policies are inconsistent with the actual data practices of mobile apps. To help mobile-app developers check their pri- vacy policies against their apps’ code for consistency, we propose a semi-automated framework that consists of a policy terminology- API method map that links policy phrases to API methods that pro- duce sensitive information, and information flow analysis to detect misalignments. We present an implementation of our framework based on a privacy-policy-phrase ontology and a collection of map- pings from API methods to policy phrases. Our empirical eval- uation on 477 top Android apps discovered 341 potential privacy policy violations.","PeriodicalId":6485,"journal":{"name":"2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"20 1","pages":"25-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77743999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Bogdan Vasilescu, Kelly Blincoe, Qi Xuan, Casey Casalnuovo, D. Damian, Premkumar T. Devanbu, V. Filkov
Software development has always inherently required multitasking: developers switch between coding, reviewing, testing, designing, and meeting with colleagues. The advent of software ecosystems like GitHub has enabled something new: the ability to easily switch between projects. Developers also have social incentives to contribute to many projects; prolific contributors gain social recognition and (eventually) economic rewards. Multitasking, however, comes at a cognitive cost: frequent context-switches can lead to distraction, sub-standard work, and even greater stress. In this paper, we gather ecosystem-level data on a group of programmers working on a large collection of projects. We develop models and methods for measuring the rate and breadth of a developers' context-switching behavior, and we study how context-switching affects their productivity. We also survey developers to understand the reasons for and perceptions of multitasking. We find that the most common reason for multitasking is interrelationships and dependencies between projects. Notably, we find that the rate of switching and breadth (number of projects) of a developer's work matter. Developers who work on many projects have higher productivity if they focus on few projects per day. Developers that switch projects too much during the course of a day have lower productivity as they work on more projects overall. Despite these findings, developers perceptions of the benefits of multitasking are varied.
{"title":"The Sky Is Not the Limit: Multitasking Across GitHub Projects","authors":"Bogdan Vasilescu, Kelly Blincoe, Qi Xuan, Casey Casalnuovo, D. Damian, Premkumar T. Devanbu, V. Filkov","doi":"10.1145/2884781.2884875","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884875","url":null,"abstract":"Software development has always inherently required multitasking: developers switch between coding, reviewing, testing, designing, and meeting with colleagues. The advent of software ecosystems like GitHub has enabled something new: the ability to easily switch between projects. Developers also have social incentives to contribute to many projects; prolific contributors gain social recognition and (eventually) economic rewards. Multitasking, however, comes at a cognitive cost: frequent context-switches can lead to distraction, sub-standard work, and even greater stress. In this paper, we gather ecosystem-level data on a group of programmers working on a large collection of projects. We develop models and methods for measuring the rate and breadth of a developers' context-switching behavior, and we study how context-switching affects their productivity. We also survey developers to understand the reasons for and perceptions of multitasking. We find that the most common reason for multitasking is interrelationships and dependencies between projects. Notably, we find that the rate of switching and breadth (number of projects) of a developer's work matter. Developers who work on many projects have higher productivity if they focus on few projects per day. Developers that switch projects too much during the course of a day have lower productivity as they work on more projects overall. Despite these findings, developers perceptions of the benefits of multitasking are varied.","PeriodicalId":6485,"journal":{"name":"2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"44 1","pages":"994-1005"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88353245","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Integer overflow (IO) vulnerabilities can be exploited by attackers to compromise computer systems. In the meantime, IOs can be used intentionally by programmers for benign purposes such as hashing and random number generation. Hence, differentiating exploitable and harmful IOs from intentional and benign ones is an important challenge. It allows reducing the number of false positives produced by IO vulnerability detection techniques, helping developers or security analysts to focus on fxing critical IOs without inspecting the numerous false alarms. The difficulty of recognizing benign IOs mainly lies in inferring the intent of programmers from source code. In this paper, we present a novel technique to recognize benign IOs via equivalence checking across multiple precisions. We determine if an IO is benign by comparing the effects of an overflowed integer arithmetic operation in the actual world (with limited precision) and the same operation in the ideal world (with sufficient precision to evade the IO). Specifically, we first extract the data flow path from the overflowed integer arithmetic operation to a security-related program point (i.e., sink) and then create a new version of the path using more precise types with sufficient bits to represent integers so that the IO can be avoided. Using theorem proving we check whether these two versions are equivalent, that is, if they yield the same values at the sink under all possible inputs. If so, the IO is benign. We implement a prototype, named IntEQ, based on the GCC compiler and the Z3 solver, and evaluate it using 26 harmful IO vulnerabilities from 20 real-world programs, and 444 benign IOs from SPECINT 2000, SPECINT 2006, and 7 real-world applications. The experimental results show that IntEQ does not misclassify any harmful IO bugs (no false negatives) and recognizes 355 out of 444 (about 79.95%) benign IOs, whereas the state of the art can only recognize 19 benign IOs.
{"title":"IntEQ: Recognizing Benign Integer Overflows via Equivalence Checking across Multiple Precisions","authors":"Hao Sun, X. Zhang, Yunhui Zheng, Qingkai Zeng","doi":"10.1145/2884781.2884820","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884820","url":null,"abstract":"Integer overflow (IO) vulnerabilities can be exploited by attackers to compromise computer systems. In the meantime, IOs can be used intentionally by programmers for benign purposes such as hashing and random number generation. Hence, differentiating exploitable and harmful IOs from intentional and benign ones is an important challenge. It allows reducing the number of false positives produced by IO vulnerability detection techniques, helping developers or security analysts to focus on fxing critical IOs without inspecting the numerous false alarms. The difficulty of recognizing benign IOs mainly lies in inferring the intent of programmers from source code. In this paper, we present a novel technique to recognize benign IOs via equivalence checking across multiple precisions. We determine if an IO is benign by comparing the effects of an overflowed integer arithmetic operation in the actual world (with limited precision) and the same operation in the ideal world (with sufficient precision to evade the IO). Specifically, we first extract the data flow path from the overflowed integer arithmetic operation to a security-related program point (i.e., sink) and then create a new version of the path using more precise types with sufficient bits to represent integers so that the IO can be avoided. Using theorem proving we check whether these two versions are equivalent, that is, if they yield the same values at the sink under all possible inputs. If so, the IO is benign. We implement a prototype, named IntEQ, based on the GCC compiler and the Z3 solver, and evaluate it using 26 harmful IO vulnerabilities from 20 real-world programs, and 444 benign IOs from SPECINT 2000, SPECINT 2006, and 7 real-world applications. The experimental results show that IntEQ does not misclassify any harmful IO bugs (no false negatives) and recognizes 355 out of 444 (about 79.95%) benign IOs, whereas the state of the art can only recognize 19 benign IOs.","PeriodicalId":6485,"journal":{"name":"2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"30 1","pages":"1051-1062"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89624081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
R. Schröter, S. Krieter, Thomas Thüm, Fabian Benduhn, G. Saake
Today’s software systems are often customizable by means of load-time or compile-time configuration options. These options are typically not independent and their dependencies can be specified by means of feature models. As many industrial systems contain thousands of options, the maintenance and utilization of feature models is a challenge for all stakeholders. In the last two decades, numerous approaches have been presented to support stakeholders in analyzing feature models. Such analyses are commonly reduced to satisfiability problems, which suffer from the growing number of options. While first attempts have been made to decompose feature models into smaller parts, they still require to compose all parts for analysis. We propose the concept of a feature-model interface that only consists of a subset of features, typically selected by experts, and hides all other features and dependencies. Based on a formalization of feature-model interfaces, we prove compositionality properties. We evaluate feature-model interfaces using a three-month history of an industrial feature model from the automotive domain with 18,616 features. Our results indicate performance benefits especially under evolution as often only parts of the feature model need to be analyzed again.
{"title":"Feature-Model Interfaces: The Highway to Compositional Analyses of Highly-Configurable Systems","authors":"R. Schröter, S. Krieter, Thomas Thüm, Fabian Benduhn, G. Saake","doi":"10.1145/2884781.2884823","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884823","url":null,"abstract":"Today’s software systems are often customizable by means of load-time or compile-time configuration options. These options are typically not independent and their dependencies can be specified by means of feature models. As many industrial systems contain thousands of options, the maintenance and utilization of feature models is a challenge for all stakeholders. In the last two decades, numerous approaches have been presented to support stakeholders in analyzing feature models. Such analyses are commonly reduced to satisfiability problems, which suffer from the growing number of options. While first attempts have been made to decompose feature models into smaller parts, they still require to compose all parts for analysis. We propose the concept of a feature-model interface that only consists of a subset of features, typically selected by experts, and hides all other features and dependencies. Based on a formalization of feature-model interfaces, we prove compositionality properties. We evaluate feature-model interfaces using a three-month history of an industrial feature model from the automotive domain with 18,616 features. Our results indicate performance benefits especially under evolution as often only parts of the feature model need to be analyzed again.","PeriodicalId":6485,"journal":{"name":"2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"1 1","pages":"667-678"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91057305","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：