Abstract
Compositional dynamic test generation can achieve significant scalability by memoizing symbolic execution sub-paths as test summaries. In this paper, we formulate the problem of statically validating symbolic test summaries against code changes. Summaries that can be proved still valid using a static analysis of a new program version do not need to be retested or recomputed dynamically. In the presence of small code changes, incrementality can considerably speed up regression testing since static checking is much cheaper than dynamic checking and testing. We provide several checks ranging from simple syntactic ones to ones that use a theorem prover. We present preliminary experimental results comparing these approaches on three large Windows applications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aho, A., Sethi, R., Ullman, J.: Compilers: Principles, Techniques and Tools. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1986)
Anand, S., Godefroid, P., Tillmann, N.: Demand-Driven Compositional Symbolic Execution. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 367–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Barnett, M., Chang, B.E., DeLine, R., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M.: Boogie: A modular reusable verifier for object-oriented programs. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 364–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Barnett, M., Leino, K.R.M.: Weakest-precondition of unstructured programs. In: PASTE 2005, pp. 82–87 (2005)
Cadar, C., Ganesh, V., Pawlowski, P.M., Dill, D.L., Engler, D.R.: EXE: Automatically Generating Inputs of Death. In: ACM CCS (2006)
Chandra, S., Fink, S.J., Sridharan, M.: Snugglebug: A Powerful Approach to Weakest Preconditions. In: PLDI 2009 (2009)
Conway, C.L., Namjoshi, K.S., Dams, D., Edwards, S.A.: Incremental algorithms for inter-procedural analysis of safety properties. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 449–461. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
de Moura, L., Bjorner, N.: Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Dijkstra, E.W.: Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs. Communications of the ACM 18, 453–457 (1975)
Edwards, A., Srivastava, A., Vo, H.: Vulcan: Binary transformation in a distributed environment. Technical report, MSR-TR-2001-50, Microsoft Research (2001)
Godefroid, P.: Compositional Dynamic Test Generation. In: POPL 2007, pp. 47–54 (2007)
Godefroid, P.: Software Model Checking Improving Security of a Billion Computers. In: Păsăreanu, C.S. (ed.) Model Checking Software. LNCS, vol. 5578, pp. 1–1. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Godefroid, P., Huth, M., Jagadeesan, R.: Abstraction-Based Model Checking Using Modal Transition Systems. In: Larsen, K.G., Nielsen, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2001. LNCS, vol. 2154, pp. 426–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Godefroid, P., Klarlund, N., Sen, K.: DART: Directed Automated Random Testing. In: PLDI 2005, pp. 213–223 (2005)
Godefroid, P., Levin, M., Molnar, D.: Automated Whitebox Fuzz Testing. In: NDSS 2008, pp. 151–166 (2008)
Godefroid, P., Nori, A., Rajamani, S., Tetali, S.: Compositional Must Program Analysis: Unleashing The Power of Alternation. In: POPL 2010 (2010)
Graves, T.L., Harrold, M.J., Kim, J.-M., Porter, A., Rothermel, G.: An Empirical Study of Regression Test Selection Techniques. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 10(2), 184–208 (2001)
Gurfinkel, A., Wei, O., Chechik, M.: Yasm: A Software Model-Checker for Verification and Refutation. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 170–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Hallem, S., Chelf, B., Xie, Y., Engler, D.: A System and Language for Building System-Specific Static Analyses. In: PLDI 2002, pp. 69–82 (2002)
Hoenicke, J., Leino, K.R.M., Podelski, A., Schäf, M., Wies, T.: It’s doomed; we can prove it. In: Cavalcanti, A., Dams, D.R. (eds.) FM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5850, pp. 338–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Molnar, D., Li, X.C., Wagner, D.: Dynamic test generation to find integer bugs in x86 binary linux programs. In: Proc. of the 18th Usenix Security Symposium (2009)
Person, S., Dwyer, M.B., Elbaum, S.G., Pasareanu, C.S.: Differential symbolic execution. In: SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 226–237 (2008)
Person, S., Yang, G., Rungta, N., Khurshid, S.: Directed Incremental Symbolic Execution. In: PLDI 2011, pp. 504–515 (2011)
Ramalingam, G., Reps, T.: A Categorized Bibliography on Incremental Algorithms. In: POPL 1993, pp. 502–510 (1993)
Reps, T., Horwitz, S., Sagiv, M.: Precise Interprocedural Dataflow Analysis via Graph Reachability. In: POPL 1995, pp. 49–61 (1995)
Santelices, R.A., Harrold, M.J., Orso, A.: Precisely detecting runtime change interactions for evolving software. In: ICST, pp. 429–438 (2010)
Satisfiability Modulo Theories Library (SMT-LIB), http://goedel.cs.uiowa.edu/smtlib/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Godefroid, P., Lahiri, S.K., Rubio-González, C. (2011). Statically Validating Must Summaries for Incremental Compositional Dynamic Test Generation. In: Yahav, E. (eds) Static Analysis. SAS 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6887. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23702-7_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23702-7_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-23701-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-23702-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)