Advertisement

JDart: A Dynamic Symbolic Analysis Framework

  • Kasper Luckow
  • Marko Dimjašević
  • Dimitra Giannakopoulou
  • Falk Howar
  • Malte Isberner
  • Temesghen Kahsai
  • Zvonimir Rakamarić
  • Vishwanath Raman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9636)

Abstract

We describe JDart, a dynamic symbolic analysis framework for Java. A distinguishing feature of JDart is its modular architecture: the main component that performs dynamic exploration communicates with a component that efficiently constructs constraints and that interfaces with constraint solvers. These components can easily be extended or modified to support multiple constraint solvers or different exploration strategies. Moreover, JDart has been engineered for robustness, driven by the need to handle complex NASA software. These characteristics, together with its recent open sourcing, make JDart an ideal platform for research and experimentation. In the current release, JDart supports the CORAL, SMTInterpol, and Z3 solvers, and is able to handle NASA software with constraints containing bit operations, floating point arithmetic, and complex arithmetic operations (e.g., trigonometric and nonlinear). We illustrate how JDart has been used to support other analysis techniques, such as automated interface generation and testing of libraries. Finally, we demonstrate the versatility and effectiveness of JDart, and compare it with state-of-the-art dynamic or pure symbolic execution engines through an extensive experimental evaluation.

Keywords

Symbolic Execution Constraint Solver Path Constraint Symbolic Analysis Branch Coverage 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    ASM: A Java bytecode engineering library. http://asm.ow2.org
  2. 2.
    Balasubramanian, D., Păsăreanu, C.S., Whalen, M.W., Karsai, G., Lowry, M.: Polyglot: modeling and analysis for multiple statechart formalisms. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 45–55 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cadar, C., Dunbar, D., Engler, D.: KLEE: unassisted and automatic generation of high-coverage tests for complex systems programs. In: Proceedings of the 5th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), pp. 209–224 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christ, J., Hoenicke, J., Nutz, A.: SMTInterpol: an interpolating SMT solver. In: Donaldson, A., Parker, D. (eds.) SPIN 2012. LNCS, vol. 7385, pp. 248–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deters, M., Reynolds, A., King, T., Barrett, C.W., Tinelli, C.: A tour of CVC4: how it works, and how to use it. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD), p. 7 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dimjašević, M., Giannakopoulou, D., Howar, F., Isberner, M., Rakamarić, Z., Raman, V.: The dart, the psyco, and the doop: concolic execution in java pathfinder and its applications. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 40(1), 1–5 (2015). Proceedings of the 2014 Java Pathfinder Workshop (JPF)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dimjašević, M., Rakamarić, Z.: JPF-Doop: combining concolic and random testing for java. In: Java Pathfinder Workshop (JPF) (2013) (Extended abstract)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dinges, P., Agha, G.: Solving complex path conditions through heuristic search on induced polytopes. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 425–436 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erzberger, H., Lauderdale, T.A., Chu, Y.C.: Automated conflict resolution, arrival management and weather avoidance for ATM. In: International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gao, S., Kong, S., Clarke, E.M.: dReal: an SMT solver for nonlinear theories over the reals. In: Bonacina, M.P. (ed.) CADE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7898, pp. 208–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gario, M., Micheli, A.: pysmt: a solver-agnostic library for fast prototyping of SMT-based algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giannakopoulou, D., Howar, F., Isberner, M., Lauderdale, T., Rakamarić, Z., Raman, V.: Taming test inputs for separation assurance. In: Proceedings of the 29th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 373–384 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giannakopoulou, D., Rakamarić, Z., Raman, V.: Symbolic learning of component interfaces. In: Miné, A., Schmidt, D. (eds.) SAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7460, pp. 248–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Godefroid, P., Klarlund, N., Sen, K.: DART: directed automated random testing. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 213–223 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Godefroid, P., Levin, M.Y., Molnar, D.: SAGE: whitebox fuzzing for security testing. Commun. ACM 55(3), 40–44 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Howar, F., Giannakopoulou, D., Rakamarić, Z.: Hybrid learning: interface generation through static, dynamic, and symbolic analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 268–279 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    JaCoCo Java code coverage library. http://www.eclemma.org/jacoco
  18. 18.
    Jayaraman, K., Harvison, D., Ganesh, V.: jFuzz: a concolic whitebox fuzzer for Java. In: Proceedings of the 1st NASA Formal Methods Symposium (NFM), pp. 121–125 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Java Pathfinder. http://jpf.byu.edu
  20. 20.
    Kähkönen, K., Launiainen, T., Saarikivi, O., Kauttio, J., Heljanko, K., Niemelä, I.: LCT: an open source concolic testing tool for Java programs. In: Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Bytecode Semantics, Verification, Analysis and Transformation (BYTECODE), pp. 75–80 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khurshid, S., Păsăreanu, C.S., Visser, W.: Generalized symbolic execution for model checking and testing. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 553–568. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    Pacheco, C., Lahiri, S., Ernst, M., Ball, T.: Feedback-directed random test generation. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 75–84 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pasareanu, C.S., Rungta, N., Visser, W.: Symbolic execution with mixed concrete-symbolic solving. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 34–44 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pǎsǎreanu, C.S., Mehlitz, P.C., Bushnell, D.H., Gundy-Burlet, K., Lowry, M., Person, S., Pape, M.: Combining unit-level symbolic execution and system-level concrete execution for testing NASA software. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 15–26 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Qiu, R., Yang, G., Păsăreanu, C.S., Khurshid, S.: Compositional symbolic execution with memoized replay. In: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 632–642 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sen, K., Agha, G.: CUTE and jCUTE: concolic unit testing and explicit path model-checking tools. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 419–423. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sen, K., Marinov, D., Agha, G.: CUTE: a concolic unit testing engine for C. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Software Engineering Conference Held Jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE), pp. 263–272 (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    The SMT-LIB standard. http://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu
  30. 30.
    Soot: A Java optimization framework. http://sable.github.io/soot
  31. 31.
    Souza, M., Borges, M., d’Amorim, M., Păsăreanu, C.S.: CORAL: solving complex constraints for symbolic pathfinder. In: Bobaru, M., Havelund, K., Holzmann, G.J., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6617, pp. 359–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Staats, M., Pǎsǎreanu, C.: Parallel symbolic execution for structural test generation. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 183–194 (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tanno, H., Zhang, X., Hoshino, T., Sen, K.: TesMa and CATG: automated test generation tools for models of enterprise applications. In: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 717–720 (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tillmann, N., de Halleux, J.: Pex–White box test generation for .NET. In: Beckert, B., Hähnle, R. (eds.) TAP 2008. LNCS, vol. 4966, pp. 134–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Visser, W., Havelund, K., Brat, G.P., Park, S., Lerda, F.: Model checking programs. Autom. Softw. Eng. 10(2), 203–232 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kasper Luckow
    • 1
  • Marko Dimjašević
    • 2
  • Dimitra Giannakopoulou
    • 3
  • Falk Howar
    • 4
  • Malte Isberner
    • 5
  • Temesghen Kahsai
    • 1
    • 3
  • Zvonimir Rakamarić
    • 2
  • Vishwanath Raman
    • 6
  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon University Silicon ValleyMountain ViewUSA
  2. 2.School of ComputingUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.NASA Ames Research CenterMoffett FieldUSA
  4. 4.IPSSETU ClausthalGoslarGermany
  5. 5.TU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany
  6. 6.StackRox Inc.Mountain ViewUSA

Personalised recommendations