Modular Construction of Shape-Numeric Analyzers

The aim of static analysis is to infer invariants about programs that are precise enough to establish semantic properties, such as the absence of run-time errors. Broadly speaking, there are two major branches of static analysis for imperative programs. Pointer and shape analyses focus on inferring properties of pointers, dynamically-allocated memory, and recursive data structures, while numeric analyses seek to derive invariants on numeric values. Although simultaneous inference of shape-numeric invariants is often needed, this case is especially challenging and is not particularly well explored. Notably, simultaneous shape-numeric inference raises complex issues in the design of the static analyzer itself. In this paper, we study the construction of such shape-numeric, static analyzers. We set up an abstract interpretation framework that allows us to reason about simultaneous shape-numeric properties by combining shape and numeric abstractions into a modular, expressive abstract domain. Such a modular structure is highly desirable to make its formalization and implementation easier to do and get correct. To achieve this, we choose a concrete semantics that can be abstracted step-by-step, while preserving a high level of expressiveness. The structure of abstract operations (i.e., transfer, join, and comparison) follows the structure of this semantics. The advantage of this construction is to divide the analyzer in modules and functors that implement abstractions of distinct features.Comment: In Proceedings Festschrift for Dave Schmidt, arXiv:1309.455

ChimpCheck: Property-Based Randomized Test Generation for Interactive Apps

We consider the problem of generating relevant execution traces to test rich interactive applications. Rich interactive applications, such as apps on mobile platforms, are complex stateful and often distributed systems where sufficiently exercising the app with user-interaction (UI) event sequences to expose defects is both hard and time-consuming. In particular, there is a fundamental tension between brute-force random UI exercising tools, which are fully-automated but offer low relevance, and UI test scripts, which are manual but offer high relevance. In this paper, we consider a middle way---enabling a seamless fusion of scripted and randomized UI testing. This fusion is prototyped in a testing tool called ChimpCheck for programming, generating, and executing property-based randomized test cases for Android apps. Our approach realizes this fusion by offering a high-level, embedded domain-specific language for defining custom generators of simulated user-interaction event sequences. What follows is a combinator library built on industrial strength frameworks for property-based testing (ScalaCheck) and Android testing (Android JUnit and Espresso) to implement property-based randomized testing for Android development. Driven by real, reported issues in open source Android apps, we show, through case studies, how ChimpCheck enables expressing effective testing patterns in a compact manner.Comment: 20 pages, 21 figures, Symposium on New ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software (Onward!2017

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

Lifestate: Event-Driven Protocols and Callback Control Flow

Developing interactive applications (apps) against event-driven software frameworks such as Android is notoriously difficult. To create apps that behave as expected, developers must follow complex and often implicit asynchronous programming protocols. Such protocols intertwine the proper registering of callbacks to receive control from the framework with appropriate application-programming interface (API) calls that in turn affect the set of possible future callbacks. An app violates the protocol when, for example, it calls a particular API method in a state of the framework where such a call is invalid. What makes automated reasoning hard in this domain is largely what makes programming apps against such frameworks hard: the specification of the protocol is unclear, and the control flow is complex, asynchronous, and higher-order. In this paper, we tackle the problem of specifying and modeling event-driven application-programming protocols. In particular, we formalize a core meta-model that captures the dialogue between event-driven frameworks and application callbacks. Based on this meta-model, we define a language called lifestate that permits precise and formal descriptions of application-programming protocols and the callback control flow imposed by the event-driven framework. Lifestate unifies modeling what app callbacks can expect of the framework with specifying rules the app must respect when calling into the framework. In this way, we effectively combine lifecycle constraints and typestate rules. To evaluate the effectiveness of lifestate modeling, we provide a dynamic verification algorithm that takes as input a trace of execution of an app and a lifestate protocol specification to either produce a trace witnessing a protocol violation or a proof that no such trace is realizable

Lifestate: Event-Driven Protocols and Callback Control Flow (Artifact)

Developing interactive applications (apps) against event-driven software frameworks such as Android is notoriously difficult. To create apps that behave as expected, developers must follow complex and often implicit asynchronous programming protocols. Such protocols intertwine the proper registering of callbacks to receive control from the framework with appropriate application-programming interface (API) calls that in turn affect the set of possible future callbacks. An app violates the protocol when, for example, it calls a particular API method in a state of the framework where such a call is invalid. What makes automated reasoning hard in this domain is largely what makes programming apps against such frameworks hard: the specification of the protocol is unclear, and the control flow is complex, asynchronous, and higher-order. In this paper, we tackle the problem of specifying and modeling event-driven application-programming protocols. In particular, we formalize a core meta-model that captures the dialogue between event-driven frameworks and application callbacks. Based on this meta-model, we define a language called lifestate that permits precise and formal descriptions of application-programming protocols and the callback control flow imposed by the event-driven framework. Lifestate unifies modeling what app callbacks can expect of the framework with specifying rules the app must respect when calling into the framework. In this way, we effectively combine lifecycle constraints and typestate rules. To evaluate the effectiveness of lifestate modeling, we provide a dynamic verification algorithm that takes as input a trace of execution of an app and a lifestate protocol specification to either produce a trace witnessing a protocol violation or a proof that no such trace is realizable