Cost-Aware Automatic Program Repair

  • Roopsha Samanta
  • Oswaldo Olivo
  • E. Allen Emerson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8723)

Abstract

We present a formal framework for repairing infinite-state, imperative, sequential programs, with (possibly recursive) procedures and multiple assertions; the framework can generate repaired programs by modifying the original erroneous program in multiple program locations, and can ensure the readability of the repaired program using user-defined expression templates; the framework also generates a set of inductive assertions that serve as a proof of correctness of the repaired program. As a step toward integrating programmer intent and intuition in automated program repair, we present a cost-aware formulation - given a cost function associated with permissible statement modifications, the goal is to ensure that the total program modification cost does not exceed a given repair budget. As part of our predicate abstractionbased solution framework, we present a sound and complete algorithm for repair of Boolean programs. We have developed a prototype tool based on SMT solving and used it successfully to repair diverse errors in benchmark C programs.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arcuri, A.: On the Automation of Fixing Software Bugs. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 1003–1006. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ball, T., Bounimova, E., Kumar, R., Levin, V.: SLAM2: Static Driver Verification with under 4% False Alarms. In: Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design (FMCAD), pp. 35–42 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ball, T., Naik, M., Rajamani, S.K.: From Symptom to Cause: Localizing Errors in Counterexample Traces. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 97–105. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: Boolean Programs: A Model and Process for Software Analysis. Tech. Rep. 2000-14, MSR (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: Automatically Validating Temporal Safety Properties of Interfaces. In: Dwyer, M.B. (ed.) SPIN 2001. LNCS, vol. 2057, pp. 103–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bloem, R., Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A., Jobstmann, B.: Better Quality in Synthesis through Quantitative Objectives. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 140–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chandra, S., Torlak, E., Barman, S., Bodik, R.: Angelic Debugging. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 121–130. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, E., Kroning, D., Sharygina, N., Yorav, K.: SATABS: SAT-based Predicate Abstraction for ANSI-C. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 570–574. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP): Loops Benchmarks (2014), http://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2014/benchmarks.php
  10. 10.
    Debroy, V., Wong, W.E.: Using Mutation to Automatically Suggest Fixes for Faulty Programs. In: Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), pp. 65–74 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Floyd, R.W.: Assigning Meanings to Programs. In: Mathematical Aspects of Computer Science, pp. 19–32. American Mathematical Society (1967)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goues, C.L., Dewey-Vogt, M., Forrest, S., Weimer, W.: A Systematic Study of Automated Program Repair: Fixing 55 out of 105 Bugs for $8 Each. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 3–13. IEEE Press (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graf, S., Saïdi, H.: Construction of Abstract State Graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Griesmayer, A., Bloem, R., Cook, B.: Repair of Boolean Programs with an Application to C. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 358–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jobstmann, B., Griesmayer, A., Bloem, R.: Program Repair as a Game. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 226–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jose, M., Majumdar, R.: Cause Clue Clauses: Error Localization using Maximum Satisfiability. In: Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 437–446. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Könighofer, R., Bloem, R.: Automated Error Localization and Correction for Imperative Programs. In: Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design (FMCAD), pp. 91–100 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Logozzo, F., Ball, T.: Modular and Verified Automatic Program Repair. In: Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications (OOPSLA), pp. 133–146. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manna, Z.: Introduction to Mathematical Theory of Computation. McGraw-Hill, Inc. (1974)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.S.: Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Samanta, R., Deshmukh, J.V., Emerson, E.A.: Automatic Generation of Local Repairs for Boolean Programs. In: Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design (FMCAD), pp. 1–10 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Samanta, R., Olivo, O., Emerson, E.A.: Cost-Aware Automatic Program Repair. CoRR abs/1307.7281 (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Singh, R., Gulwani, S., Solar-Lezama, A.: Automatic Feedback Generation for Introductory Programming Assignments. In: Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Singh, R., Solar-Lezma, A.: Synthesizing Data-Structure Manipulations from Storyboards. In: Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 289–299 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Solar-Lezama, A., Rabbah, R., Bodik, R., Ebcioglu, K.: Programming by Sketching for Bit-streaming Programs. In: Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 281–294. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Solar-Lezama, A., Tancau, L., Bodik, R., Seshia, S., Saraswat, V.: Combinatorial Sketching for Finite Programs. In: Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pp. 404–415. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Srivastava, S., Gulwani, S., Foster, J.S.: From Program Verification to Program Synthesis. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 313–326. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wei, Y., Pei, Y., Furia, C.A., Silva, L.S., Buchholz, S., Meyer, B., Zeller, A.: Automated Fixing of Programs with Contracts. In: International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 61–72. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nokhbeh Zaeem, R., Gopinath, D., Khurshid, S., McKinley, K.S.: History-Aware Data Structure Repair using SAT. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zeller, A., Hilebrandt, R.: Simplifying and Isolating Failure-Inducing Input. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(2), 183–200 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roopsha Samanta
    • 1
    • 2
  • Oswaldo Olivo
    • 1
  • E. Allen Emerson
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of Texas at AustinUSA
  2. 2.IST AustriaAustria

Personalised recommendations