Advertisement

The Julia Static Analyzer for Java

  • Fausto Spoto
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9837)

Abstract

The Julia static analyzer applies abstract interpretation to the analysis and verification of Java bytecode. It is the result of 13 years of engineering effort based on theoretical research on denotational and constraint-based static analysis through abstract interpretation. Julia is a library for static analysis, over which many checkers have been built, that verify the absence of a large set of typical errors of software: among them are null-pointer accesses, non-termination, wrong synchronization and injection threats to security. This article recaps the history of Julia, describes the technology under the hood of the tool, reports lessons learned from the market, current limitations and future work.

Keywords

False Alarm Abstract Interpretation Abstract Domain Injection Attack Fixpoint Computation 
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.
  2. 2.
    Albert, E., Arenas, P., Genaim, S., Puebla, G., Zanardini, D.: COSTA: design and implementation of a cost and termination analyzer for java bytecode. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2007. LNCS, vol. 5382, pp. 113–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bagnara, R., Hill, P.M., Zaffanella, E.: The parma polyhedra library: toward a complete set of numerical abstractions for the analysis and verification of hardware and software systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 72(1–2), 3–21 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bagnara, R., Mesnard, F., Pescetti, A., Zaffanella, E.: A new look at the automatic synthesis of linear ranking functions. Inf. Comput. 215, 47–67 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bryant, R.: Symbolic boolean manipulation with ordered binary-decision diagrams. ACM Comput. Surv. 24(3), 293–318 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Codish, M., Lagoon, V., Stuckey, P.J.: Testing for termination with monotonicity constraints. In: Gabbrielli, M., Gupta, G. (eds.) ICLP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3668, pp. 326–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: Proceedings of Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 1977), pp. 238–252 (1977)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dill, D.L.: Timing assumptions and verification of finite-state concurrent systems. In: Sifakis, J. (ed.) Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems. LNCS, vol. 407, pp. 197–212. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ernst, M.D., Lovato, A., Macedonio, D., Spiridon, C., Spoto, F.: Boolean formulas for the static identification of injection attacks in Java. In: Davis, M., et al. (eds.) LPAR-20 2015. LNCS, vol. 9450, pp. 130–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-48899-7_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ernst, M.D., Lovato, A., Macedonio, D., Spoto, F., Thaine, J.: Locking discipline inference and checking. In: Proceedings of Software Engineering (ICSE 2016), Austin, TX, USA, pp. 1133–1144. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ernst, M.D., Macedonio, D., Merro, M., Spoto, F.: Semantics for locking specifications. In: Rayadurgam, S., Tkachuk, O. (eds.) NFM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9690, pp. 355–372. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40648-0_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    The Apache Software Foundation. Jasper 2 JSP Engine How To. https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.0-doc/jasper-howto.html
  13. 13.
    The Apache Software Foundation. Apache Commons BCEL. https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-bcel. 24 June 2016
  14. 14.
    Goetz, B., Peierls, T., Bloch, J., Bowbeer, J., Holmes, D., Lea, D.: Java Concurrency in Practice. Addison Wesley, Reading (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Göransson, A.: Efficient Android Threading. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Red Hat. Hibernate. Everything Data. http://hibernate.org
  17. 17.
    Hermenegildo, M., Warren, D.S., Debray, S.K.: Global flow analysis as a practical compilation tool. J. Logic Program. 13(4), 349–366 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pivotal Software Inc. Spring Framework. https://projects.spring.io/spring-framework
  19. 19.
    Lee, C.S., Jones, N.D., Ben-Amram, A.M.: The size-change principle for program termination. In: Proceedings of Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2001), pp. 81–92. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    MITRE/SANS. Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors. http://cwe.mitre.org/top25. September 2011
  21. 21.
    Nikolić, Ð., Spoto, F.: Definite expression aliasing analysis for Java bytecode. In: Roychoudhury, A., D’Souza, M. (eds.) ICTAC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7521, pp. 74–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nikolić, Ð., Spoto, F.: Reachability analysis of program variables. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. (TOPLAS) 35(4), 14 (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Palsberg, J., Schwartzbach, M.I.: Object-oriented type inference. In: Proceedings of Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages & Applications (OOPSLA 1991). ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 26(11), pp. 146–161. ACM, November 1991Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Payet, É., Spoto, F.: Magic-sets transformation for the analysis of Java bytecode. In: Riis Nielson, H., Filé, G. (eds.) SAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4634, pp. 452–467. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Payet, É., Spoto, F.: Static analysis of android programs. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(11), 1192–1201 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: A complete method for the synthesis of linear ranking functions. In: Steffen, B., Levi, G. (eds.) VMCAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 2937, pp. 239–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raychev, V., Bielik, P., Vechev, M.T., Krause, A.: Learning programs from noisy data. In: Proceedings of Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2016), St. Petersburg, FL, USA, pp. 761–774. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rossignoli, S., Spoto, F.: Detecting non-cyclicity by abstract compilation into boolean functions. In: Emerson, E.A., Namjoshi, K.S. (eds.) VMCAI 2006. LNCS, vol. 3855, pp. 95–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Secci, S., Spoto, F.: Pair-sharing analysis of object-oriented programs. In: Hankin, C., Siveroni, I. (eds.) SAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3672, pp. 320–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spoto, F.: Precise null-pointer analysis. Softw. Syst. Model. 10(2), 219–252 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spoto, F., Ernst, M.D.: Inference of field initialization. In: Proceedings of Software Engineering (ICSE 2011), Waikiki, Honolulu, USA, pp. 231–240. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Spoto, F., Jensen, T.P.: Class analyses as abstract interpretations of trace semantics. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. (TOPLAS) 25(5), 578–630 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Spoto, F., Mesnard, F., Payet, É.: A termination analyzer for Java bytecode based on path-length. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. (TOPLAS) 32(3), 1–70 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Winskel, G.: The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages: An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità di Verona, and Julia SrlVeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations