Advertisement

Incremental False Path Elimination for Static Software Analysis

  • Ansgar Fehnker
  • Ralf Huuck
  • Sean Seefried
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5799)

Abstract

In this work we introduce a novel approach for removing false positives in static program analysis. We present an incremental algorithm that investigates paths to failure locations with respect to feasibility. The feasibility test it done by interval constraint solving over a semantic abstraction of program paths. Sets of infeasible paths can be ruled out by enriching the analysis incrementally with observers. Much like counterexample guided abstraction refinement for software verification our approach enables to start static program analysis with a coarse syntactic abstraction and use richer semantic information to rule out false positives when necessary and possible. Moreover, we present our implementation in the Goanna static analyzer and compare it to other tools for C/C++ program analysis.

Keywords

Model Check Static Software Analysis Label Transition System Predicate Abstraction Static Analysis Tool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Software verification with BLAST. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 235–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clarke, E., Kroening, 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)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gawlitza, T., Seidl, H.: Precise fixpoint computation through strategy iteration. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 300–315. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kroening, D., Weissenbacher, G.: Counterexamples with loops for predicate abstraction. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 152–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, E., Kroening, D., Lerda, F.: A tool for checking ANSI-C programs. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 168–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gulavani, B., Rajamani, S.: Counterexample driven refinement for abstract interpretation. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 474–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang, C., Yang, Z., Gupta, A., Ivancic, F.: Using counterexamples for improving the precision of reachability computation with polyhedra. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 352–365. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fehnker, A., Huuck, R., Jayet, P., Lussenburg, M., Rauch, F.: Model checking software at compile time. In: Proc. TASE 2007. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holzmann, G.: Static source code checking for user-defined properties. In: Proc. IDPT 2002, Pasadena, CA, USA (June 2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dams, D.R., Namjoshi, K.S.: Orion: High-precision methods for static error analysis of C and C++ programs. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 138–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schmidt, D.A., Steffen, B.: Program analysis as model checking of abstract interpretations. In: Levi, G. (ed.) SAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1503, pp. 351–380. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fehnker, A., Clarke, E., Jha, S., Krogh, B.: Refining abstractions of hybrid systems using counterexample fragments. In: Morari, M., Thiele, L. (eds.) HSCC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3414, pp. 242–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jha, S.K., Krogh, B., Clarke, E., Weimer, J., Palkar, A.: Iterative relaxation abstraction for linear hybrid automata. In: Proc. HSCC 2007. LNCS (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fehnker, A., Huuck, R., Rauch, F., Seefried, S.: Counterexample guided path reduction. Technical Report (number to be assigned), NICTA (January 2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ermedahl, A., Sjödin, M.: Interval analysis of C-variables using abstract interpretation. Technical report, Uppsala University (December 1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jhala, R., McMillan, K.L.: A practical and complete approach to predicate refinement. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 459–473. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ansgar Fehnker
    • 1
  • Ralf Huuck
    • 1
  • Sean Seefried
    • 1
  1. 1.National ICT Australia Ltd.(NICTA), Locked Bag 6016University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations