McPatom: A Predictive Analysis Tool for Atomicity Violation Using Model Checking

  • Reng Zeng
  • Zhuo Sun
  • Su Liu
  • Xudong He
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7385)

Abstract

Multi-thread programs are prone to bugs due to concurrency. Concurrency bugs are hard to find and reproduce because of the large number of interleavings. Most non-deadlock concurrency bugs are atomicity violation bugs due to unprotected accesses of shared variables by multiple threads. This paper presents a dynamic prediction tool named McPatom for predicting atomicity violation bugs involving a pair of threads accessing a shared variable using model checking. McPatom uses model checking to ensure the completeness in predicting any possible atomicity violation captured in the abstract thread model extracted from an interleaved execution. McPatom can predict atomicity violations involving more than three accesses and multiple subroutines, and supports all synchronization primitives. We have applied McPatom in predicting several known bugs in real world systems including one that evades several other existing tools. We provide evaluations of McPatom in terms of atomicity violation predictability and performance with additional improvement strategies.

Keywords

Shared Variable Linear Time Temporal Logic Synchronization Event Partial Order Reduction Spin Model Checker 
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.
    Poulsen, K.: Software bug contributed to blackout (2004), http://www.securityfocus.com/news/8016 (Online accessed July 16, 2011)
  2. 2.
    Lu, S., Tucek, J., Qin, F., Zhou, Y.: AVIO: detecting atomicity violations via access interleaving invariants. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, ASPLOS 2006, San Jose, CA, USA, pp. 37–48 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Luk, C., Cohn, R., Muth, R., Patil, H., Klauser, A., Lowney, G., Wallace, S., Reddi, V.J., Hazelwood, K.: Pin: building customized program analysis tools with dynamic instrumentation. In: The 2005 ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2005, Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 190–200 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holzmann, G.: The Spin Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley Professional (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lu, S., Park, S., Zhou, Y.: Finding Atomicity-Violation bugs through unserializable interleaving testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering PP(99), 1 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, C., Limaye, R., Ganai, M., Gupta, A.: Trace-Based Symbolic Analysis for Atomicity Violations. In: Esparza, J., Majumdar, R. (eds.) TACAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6015, pp. 328–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lamport, L.: Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Communications of the ACM 21(7), 558–565 (1978)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bernstein, P.A., Hadzilacos, V., Goodman, N.: Concurrency control and recovery in database systems, vol. 5. Addison-Wesley, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu, J., Narayanasamy, S.: A case for an interleaving constrained shared-memory multi-processor. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Symposium on Computer Architecture, ISCA 2009, Austin, TX, USA, pp. 325–336 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Woo, S.C., Ohara, M., Torrie, E., Singh, J.P., Gupta, A.: The SPLASH-2 programs: characterization and methodological considerations. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Computer Architecture, ISCA 1995, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 24–36 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Musuvathi, M., Qadeer, S., Ball, T., Basler, G., Nainar, P.A., Neamtiu, I.: Finding and reproducing heisenbugs in concurrent programs. In: Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI 2008, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 267–280 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flanagan, C., Freund, S.N., Yi, J.: Velodrome: a sound and complete dynamic atomicity checker for multithreaded programs. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2008, Tucson, AZ, USA, pp. 293–303 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang, L., Stoller, S.D.: Runtime analysis of atomicity for multithreaded programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 32, 93–110 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sorrentino, F., Farzan, A., Madhusudan, P.: Penelope: weaving threads to expose atomicity violations. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE 2010, Santa Fe, NM, USA, pp. 37–46 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Farzan, A., Madhusudan, P.: The Complexity of Predicting Atomicity Violations. In: Kowalewski, S., Philippou, A. (eds.) TACAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5505, pp. 155–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen, F., Serbanuta, T.F., Rosu, G.: jPredictor: a predictive runtime analysis tool for java. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2008, Leipzig, Germany, pp. 221–230 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reng Zeng
    • 1
  • Zhuo Sun
    • 1
  • Su Liu
    • 1
  • Xudong He
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing and Information SciencesFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations