RV 2013: Runtime Verification pp 269-284 | Cite as

Optimizing Nop-shadows Typestate Analysis by Filtering Interferential Configurations

  • Chengsong Wang
  • Zhenbang Chen
  • Xiaoguang Mao
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8174)

Abstract

Nop-shadows Analysis (NSA) is an efficient static typestate analysis, which can be used to eliminate unnecessary monitoring instrumentations for runtime monitors. In this paper, we propose two optimizations to improve the precision of NSA. Both of the optimizations filter interferential configurations when determining whether a monitoring instrumentation is necessary. We have implemented our optimization methods in Clara and conducted extensive experiments on the DaCapo benchmark. The experimental results indicate that the optimized NSA can further remove unnecessary instrumentations after the original NSA in more than half of the cases, without a significant overhead. In addition, for two cases, all the instrumentations are removed, which implies the program is proved to satisfy the typestate property.

Keywords

Typestate Analysis Runtime Monitoring Static Analysis Nop-shadows Analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Allan, C., Avgustinov, P., Christensen, A.S., Hendren, L., Kuzins, S., Lhoták, O., De Moor, O., Sereni, D., Sittampalam, G., Tibble, J.: Adding trace matching with free variables to aspectj. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 40(10), 345–364 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bierhoff, K., Aldrich, J.: Modular typestate checking of aliased objects. In: 22nd Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming Systems and Applications (OOPSLA), pp. 301–320. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blackburn, S.M., Garner, R., Hoffmann, C., Khang, A.M., McKinley, K.S., Bentzur, R., Diwan, A., Feinberg, D., Frampton, D., Guyer, S.Z., Hirzel, M., Hosking, A., Jump, M., Lee, H., Moss, J.E.B., Phansalkar, A., Stefanović, D., VanDrunen, T., von Dincklage, D., Wiedermann, B.: The dacapo benchmarks: Java benchmarking development and analysis. In: 21st Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), pp. 169–190. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bodden, E.: J-lo-a tool for runtime-checking temporal assertions. Master’s thesis, RWTH Aachen university (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bodden, E.: Verifying Finite-state Properties of Large-scale Programs. Ph.D. thesis, McGill University (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bodden, E.: Efficient hybrid typestate analysis by determining continuation-equivalent states. In: 32nd International Conference on Software Engineerin (ICSE), pp. 5–14. IEEE, ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bodden, E., Lam, P., Hendren, L.: Finding programming errors earlier by evaluating runtime monitors ahead-of-time. In: 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 36–47. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bodden, E., Lam, P., Hendren, L.: Object representatives: A uniform abstraction for pointer information. In: International Conference on Visions of Computer Science: BCS International Academic Conference (VoCS), pp. 391–405. British Computer Society, Swinton (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bodden, E., Lam, P., Hendren, L.: Clara: A framework for partially evaluating finite-state runtime monitors ahead of time. In: Barringer, H., et al. (eds.) RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418, pp. 183–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, F., Roşu, G.: Mop: An efficient and generic runtime verification framework. In: 22nd Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming Systems and Applications (OOPSLA), pp. 569–588. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dwyer, M.B., Purandare, R.: Residual dynamic typestate analysis exploiting static analysis: Results to reformulate and reduce the cost of dynamic analysis. In: 22nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 124–133. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fink, S., Yahav, E., Dor, N., Ramalingam, G., Geay, E.: Effective typestate verification in the presence of aliasing. In: 15th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 133–144. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Mendhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C., Loingtier, J.M., Irwin, J.: Aspect-oriented Programming. Springer (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krüger, I.H., Lee, G., Meisinger, M.: Automating software architecture exploration with m2aspects. In: International Workshop on Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools (SCESM), pp. 51–58. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maoz, S., Harel, D.: From multi-modal scenarios to code: Compiling lscs into aspectj. In: 14th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (SIGSOFT/FSE), pp. 219–230. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Masuhara, H., Kiczales, G., Dutchyn, C.: A compilation and optimization model for aspect-oriented programs. In: Hedin, G. (ed.) CC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2622, pp. 46–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Naeem, N.A., Lhotak, O.: Typestate-like analysis of multiple interacting objects. In: 23rd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications (OOPSLA), pp. 347–366. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pradel, M., Jaspan, C., Aldrich, J., Gross, T.R.: Statically checking api protocol conformance with mined multi-object specifications. In: 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE Press, Piscataway (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Purandare, R.: Exploiting Program and Property Structure for Efficient Runtime Monitoring. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Purandare, R., Dwyer, M.B., Elbaum, S.: Monitor optimization via stutter-equivalent loop transformation. In: 25th International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications (OOPSLA), pp. 270–285. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Slaughter, S.A., Harter, D.E., Krishnan, M.S.: Evaluating the cost of software quality. Communications of the ACM 41(8), 67–73 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Strom, R.E., Yemini, S.: Typestate: A programming language concept for enhancing software reliability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 12(1), 157–171 (1986)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chengsong Wang
    • 1
  • Zhenbang Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiaoguang Mao
    • 1
  1. 1.College of ComputerNational University of Defense TechnologyChangshaChina
  2. 2.National Laboratory for Parallel and Distributed ProcessingChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations