An Experimental Evaluation of Deliberate Unsoundness in a Static Program Analyzer

Abstract. Many practical static analyzers are not completely sound by design. Their designers trade soundness in order to increase automa-tion, improve performance, and reduce the number of false positives or the annotation overhead. However, the impact of such design decisions on the effectiveness of an analyzer is not well understood. In this pa-per, we report on the first systematic effort to document and evaluate the sources of unsoundness in a static analyzer. We present a code in-strumentation that reflects the sources of deliberate unsoundness in the.NET static analyzer Clousot. We have instrumented code from several open source projects to evaluate how often concrete executions violate Clousot’s unsound assumptions. In our experiments, this was the case in 8–29 % of all analyzed methods. Our approach and findings can guide users of static analyzers in using them fruitfully, and designers in finding good trade-offs.

Differentially Testing Soundness and Precision of Program Analyzers

In the last decades, numerous program analyzers have been developed both by academia and industry. Despite their abundance however, there is currently no systematic way of comparing the effectiveness of different analyzers on arbitrary code. In this paper, we present the first automated technique for differentially testing soundness and precision of program analyzers. We used our technique to compare six mature, state-of-the art analyzers on tens of thousands of automatically generated benchmarks. Our technique detected soundness and precision issues in most analyzers, and we evaluated the implications of these issues to both designers and users of program analyzers

Guiding Dynamic Symbolic Execution Toward Unverified Program Executions

Most techniques to detect program errors, such as testing, code reviews, and static program analysis, do not fully verify all possible executions of a program. They leave executions unverified when they do not check certain properties, fail to verify properties, or check properties under certain unsound assumptions such as the absence of arithmetic overflow. In this paper, we present a technique to complement partial verification results by automatic test case generation. In contrast to existing work, our technique supports the common case that the verification results are based on unsound assumptions. We annotate programs to reflect which executions have been verified, and under which assumptions. These annotations are then used to guide dynamic symbolic execution toward unverified program executions. Our main technical contribution is a code instrumentation that causes dynamic symbolic execution to abort tests that lead to verified executions, to prune parts of the search space, and to prioritize tests that cover more properties that are not fully verified. We have implemented our technique for the .NET static analyzer Clousot and the dynamic symbolic execution tool Pex. It produces smaller test suites (by up to 19.2%), covers more unverified executions (by up to 7.1%), and reduces testing time (by up to 52.4%) compared to combining Clousot and Pex without our technique

Putting the Semantics into Semantic Versioning

The long-standing aspiration for software reuse has made astonishing strides in the past few years. Many modern software development ecosystems now come with rich sets of publicly-available components contributed by the community. Downstream developers can leverage these upstream components, boosting their productivity. However, components evolve at their own pace. This imposes obligations on and yields benefits for downstream developers, especially since changes can be breaking, requiring additional downstream work to adapt to. Upgrading too late leaves downstream vulnerable to security issues and missing out on useful improvements; upgrading too early results in excess work. Semantic versioning has been proposed as an elegant mechanism to communicate levels of compatibility, enabling downstream developers to automate dependency upgrades. While it is questionable whether a version number can adequately characterize version compatibility in general, we argue that developers would greatly benefit from tools such as semantic version calculators to help them upgrade safely. The time is now for the research community to develop such tools: large component ecosystems exist and are accessible, component interactions have become observable through automated builds, and recent advances in program analysis make the development of relevant tools feasible. In particular, contracts (both traditional and lightweight) are a promising input to semantic versioning calculators, which can suggest whether an upgrade is likely to be safe.Comment: to be published as Onward! Essays 202

Synthesizing Short-Circuiting Validation of Data Structure Invariants

This paper presents incremental verification-validation, a novel approach for checking rich data structure invariants expressed as separation logic assertions. Incremental verification-validation combines static verification of separation properties with efficient, short-circuiting dynamic validation of arbitrarily rich data constraints. A data structure invariant checker is an inductive predicate in separation logic with an executable interpretation; a short-circuiting checker is an invariant checker that stops checking whenever it detects at run time that an assertion for some sub-structure has been fully proven statically. At a high level, our approach does two things: it statically proves the separation properties of data structure invariants using a static shape analysis in a standard way but then leverages this proof in a novel manner to synthesize short-circuiting dynamic validation of the data properties. As a consequence, we enable dynamic validation to make up for imprecision in sound static analysis while simultaneously leveraging the static verification to make the remaining dynamic validation efficient. We show empirically that short-circuiting can yield asymptotic improvements in dynamic validation, with low overhead over no validation, even in cases where static verification is incomplete