Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byBailee Points Modified over 2 years ago

1
**Delta Debugging and Model Checkers for fault localization**

Amin Alipour Note: Some slides/figures in this presentations has been used/adapted from presentations by Andreas Zeller, Tevfik Bultan , and Alex Groce.

2
**Outline Software Fault – some facts Delta debugging Model checking**

Simplifying test cases Isolating failure inducing parts in test cases Search in space Model checking Background Distance metrics Conclusion

3
Software faults Software fault/flaw/bug perturbs the state of a program to an error state. Error state can propagates through the execution of the program and cause a failure. Failure is manifestation of error. Error and subsequently failure cannot happen without a fault. For debugging, we need to fix the faults.

4
**Software debugging What we have for debugging?**

Program Set of test cases. … For maintainable debugging of failures: We need to understand the test case/failure. We need to identify the location of faults. (Fault Localization) Can we automate it? It is called fault localization.

5
**Approaches to Fault Localization**

Program Slicing Program Spectra Statistical Reasoning Delta Debugging Model Checking

6
**Delta Debugging Goal: Delta debugging comes with two techniques:**

Removing components irrelevant to the failure from test cases. It can improve comprehension of the failure. Delta debugging comes with two techniques: Simplification (minimization) of test cases, and Isolation of failure-inducing parts from test cases.

7
Delta Debugging Failing test cases are usually cluttered by unnecessary/irrelevant things. ……. <td align=left valign=top><SELECT NAME="op sys" MULTIPLE SIZE=7><OPTION VALUE="All">All<OPTION VALUE="Windows 3.1"> Windows 3.1<OPTIONVALUE="Windows 95">Windows 95<OPTION VALUE="Windows 98">Windows 98<OPTION VALUE="Windows ME"> Windows ME<OPTION VALUE="Windows 2000">Windows2000<OPTION VALUE="Windows NT">Windows NT<OPTION VALUE="Mac System 7"> Mac System 7<OPTION VALUE="Mac System 7.5">Mac System 7.5<OPTION VALUE="MacSystem 7.6.1">Mac System 7.6.1<OPTION VAL UE="Mac System 8.0">Mac System8.0<OPTION VALUE="Mac System 8.5">Mac System 8.5<OPTION VALUE="Mac System8.6">Mac Syst em 8.6<OPTION VALUE="Mac System 9.x">Mac System 9.x<OPTIONVALUE="MacOS X">MacOS X<OPTION VALUE="Linux">Linux<OPTION VALUE="BSDI">BSDI<OPTION VALUE="FreeBSD">FreeBSD<OPTIONVALUE="NetBSD">NetBSD<OPTION VALUE="OpenBSD">OpenBSD<OPTION VALUE="AIX">AIX<OPTION VALUE="BeOS">BeOS <OPTION VALUE="HP-UX">HP-UX<OPTIONVALUE="IRIX">IRIX<OPTION VALUE="Neutrino ">Neutrino<OPTION VALUE="OpenVMS">OpenVMS<OPTION VALUE="OS/2">OS/2<OPTION VALUE="OSF/1">OSF/1<OPTION VALUE="Solaris" >Solaris<OPTIONVALUE="SunOS">SunOS<OPTION VALUE="other">other</SELECT></td><td align=left valign=top><SELECT NAME="p riority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7><OPTION VALUE="--">--<OPTION VALUE="P1">P1<OPTION VALUE="P2">P2<OPTIONVALUE="P3">P3<OPTION VALUE="P4">P4<OPTION VALUE="P5">P5</SELECT></td><td align=left valign=top><SELECT NAME="bug severity" MULTIPLE SIZE= 7><OPTION VALUE="blocker">blocker<OPTION VALUE="critical">critical<OPTIONVALUE="major">major<OPTION VALUE="normal"> normal<OPTIONVALUE="minor">minor<OPTION VALUE="trivial">trivial<OPTION VALUE="enhancement">enhancement</SELECT></tr> </table> …..

8
**Simplification of test cases**

Goal: Minimizing the size of a failing test case, cF. cF = 1 2 ... n Minimizing test cases requires checking all subset of s. Delta debugging simplifies a failing test case cF to a 1-minimal test case. 1-minimal failing test case: A failing test case is 1-minimal, if any part of it (i) is removed, the failure will disappear.

9
**Simplification Algorithm**

i = cF i Test each 1, 2, ... n and each 1, 2, ..., n There are four possible outcomes Some i causes failure Partition i to two and continue with i as the test set Some i causes failure Continue with i as the test set with n 1 subsets No test causes failure Increase granularity by generating a partition with 2n subsets The granularity can no longer be increased Done, found the 1-minimal subset

10
**Simplification- Example**

Granularity n = 2 n = 4 n = 3 n = 2 n = 4 n = 3

11
**Simplification Example 2**

1 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> F 2 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 3 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 4 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 5 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> F 6 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> F 7 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 8 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 9 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 10 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> F 11 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 12 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 13 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P

12
**Simplification Example 2-cont’d**

14 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 15 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 16 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> F 17 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> F 18 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> F 19 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 20 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 21 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 22 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 23 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 24 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 25 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 26 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> F

13
**Simplification <SELECT> …….**

<td align=left valign=top><SELECT NAME="op sys" MULTIPLE SIZE=7><OPTION VALUE="All">All<OPTION VALUE="Windows 3.1"> Windows 3.1<OPTIONVALUE="Windows 95">Windows 95<OPTION VALUE="Windows 98">Windows 98<OPTION VALUE="Windows ME"> Windows ME<OPTION VALUE="Windows 2000">Windows2000<OPTION VALUE="Windows NT">Windows NT<OPTION VALUE="Mac System 7"> Mac System 7<OPTION VALUE="Mac System 7.5">Mac System 7.5<OPTION VALUE="MacSystem 7.6.1">Mac System 7.6.1<OPTION VAL UE="Mac System 8.0">Mac System8.0<OPTION VALUE="Mac System 8.5">Mac System 8.5<OPTION VALUE="Mac System8.6">Mac Syst em 8.6<OPTION VALUE="Mac System 9.x">Mac System 9.x<OPTIONVALUE="MacOS X">MacOS X<OPTION VALUE="Linux">Linux<OPTION VALUE="BSDI">BSDI<OPTION VALUE="FreeBSD">FreeBSD<OPTIONVALUE="NetBSD">NetBSD<OPTION VALUE="OpenBSD">OpenBSD<OPTION VALUE="AIX">AIX<OPTION VALUE="BeOS">BeOS <OPTION VALUE="HP-UX">HP-UX<OPTIONVALUE="IRIX">IRIX<OPTION VALUE="Neutrino ">Neutrino<OPTION VALUE="OpenVMS">OpenVMS<OPTION VALUE="OS/2">OS/2<OPTION VALUE="OSF/1">OSF/1<OPTION VALUE="Solaris" >Solaris<OPTIONVALUE="SunOS">SunOS<OPTION VALUE="other">other</SELECT></td><td align=left valign=top><SELECT NAME="p riority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7><OPTION VALUE="--">--<OPTION VALUE="P1">P1<OPTION VALUE="P2">P2<OPTIONVALUE="P3">P3<OPTION VALUE="P4">P4<OPTION VALUE="P5">P5</SELECT></td><td align=left valign=top><SELECT NAME="bug severity" MULTIPLE SIZE= 7><OPTION VALUE="blocker">blocker<OPTION VALUE="critical">critical<OPTIONVALUE="major">major<OPTION VALUE="normal"> normal<OPTIONVALUE="minor">minor<OPTION VALUE="trivial">trivial<OPTION VALUE="enhancement">enhancement</SELECT></tr> </table> ….. Simplification <SELECT>

14
**Isolation of Failure-inducing part from test case**

Even in minimal test cases, there are still some elements in the minimal test case that are not directly related to the failure. E.g., a minimal test case for a C compiler, still needs to have some symbols like: {,}, or variable declarations for the validity of test input that might be irrelevant to the failure. #define SIZE 20 Double mult(double z[], int n) { int i, j; i = 0; for(j=0;j<n);j++){ i = i + j + 1; z[i] = z[i]*(z[0] + 1.0); } return z[n];

15
**Isolation of Failure-inducing part from a test case**

How to isolate failure-related parts? Find a pair of passing and failing input that are very similar and contrast them. Failing Test Case Passing Test Case #define SIZE 20 Double mult(double z[], int n) { int i, j; i = 0; for(j=0;j<n);j++){ i = i + j + 1; z[i] = z[i]*(z[0] + 1.0); } return z[n]; #define SIZE 20 Double mult(double z[], int n) { int i, j; i = 0; for(j=0;j<n);j++){ i + j + 1; z[i] = z[i]*(z[0] + 1.0); } return z[n];

16
Isolation Algorithm Narrow down the gap between passing and failing test case, by removing their differences and making them more similar.

17
Isolation Example 2 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> F 4 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> F 7 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 6 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 5 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 3 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P 1 <SELECT NAME="priority" MULTIPLE SIZE=7> P

18
Cause for a failure Can we use the isolation technique to find causes of the failure?

19
**Cause for a failure - example**

You need gdb!

20
**cause of a failure - example**

21
**Cause Transitions rp rf Cause a a a b Cause Transition b c l1 l2 li**

lj c Lj+1

22
**Discussion on delta debugging**

It scales well. It requires minimal information about the program and its specification. There are several extensions to it: Hierarchal Delta debugging Isolating schedules in concurrent systems. Isolating failure-inducing changes in repositories.

23
**Model Checkers for fault localization**

24
**Model Checking Problem**

Satisfied Program/Model Model Checker Specification/ assertions Counter-example

25
**Fault Localization with Model Checkers**

Model Checkers can perform different queries on program paths and states. These queries can be used for fault localization: Contrasting Distance Metrics Max-SAT

26
**Explanation with Distance Metrics**

How it’s done: First, the program (P) and specification (spec) are sent to the model checker. Model checker P+spec

27
**Explanation with Distance Metrics**

How it’s done: The model checker finds a counterexample, C. Model checker C P+spec

28
**Explanation with Distance Metrics**

How it’s done: The explanation tool uses P, spec, and C to generate (via Bounded Model Checking) a formula with solutions that are executions of P that are not counterexamples Model checker C P+spec BMC/constraint generator

29
**Explanation with Distance Metrics**

How it’s done: Constraints are added to this formula for an optimization problem: find a solution that is as similar to C as possible, by the distance metric d. The formula + optimization problem is S Model checker C P+spec BMC/constraint generator S

30
**Explanation with Distance Metrics**

How it’s done: An optimization tool (PBS, the Pseudo-Boolean Solver) finds a solution to S: an execution of P that is not a counterexample, and is as similar as possible to C: call this execution -C Model checker C P+spec BMC/constraint generator S -C Optimization tool

31
**Explanation with Distance Metrics**

Report the differences (s) between C and –C to the user: explanation and fault localization Model checker C P+spec C BMC/constraint generator s -C S -C Optimization tool

32
**“SSA” Transformation int main () { int main () { int x, y; int x0, y0;**

int z = y; if (x > 0) y--; else y++; z++; assert (y == z); } int main () { int x0, y0; int z0 = y0; y1 = y0 - 1; y2 = y0 + 1; guard1 = x0 > 0; y3 = guard1?y1:y2; z1 = z0 + 1; assert (y3 == z1); }

33
**Transformation to Equations**

int main () { int x0, y0; int z0 = y0; y1 = y0 - 1; y2 = y0 + 1; guard1 = x0 > 0; y3 = guard1?y1:y2; z1 = z0 + 1; assert (y3 == z1); } (z0 == y0 y1 == y0 – 1 y2 == y0 + 1 guard1 == x0 > 0 y3 == guard1?y1:y2 z1 == z0 + 1 y3 == z1)

34
**Transformation to Equations**

int main () { int x0, y0; int z0 = y0; y1 = y0 - 1; y2 = y0 + 1; guard1 = x0 > 0; y3 = guard1?y1:y2; z1 = z0 + 1; assert (y3 == z1); } (z0 == y0 y1 == y0 – 1 y2 == y0 + 1 guard1 == x0 > 0 y3 == guard1?y1:y2 z1 == z0 + 1 y3 == z1) Uninitialized variables in CBMC are unconstrained inputs.

35
**Transformation to Equations**

int main () { int x0, y0; int z0 = y0; y1 = y0 - 1; y2 = y0 + 1; guard1 = x0 > 0; y3 = guard1?y1:y2; z1 = z0 + 1; assert (y3 == z1); } (z0 == y0 y1 == y0 – 1 y2 == y0 + 1 guard1 == x0 > 0 y3 == guard1?y1:y2 z1 == z0 + 1 y3 == z1) CBMC (1) negates the assertion

36
**Transformation to Equations**

int main () { int x0, y0; int z0 = y0; y1 = y0 - 1; y2 = y0 + 1; guard1 = x0 > 0; y3 = guard1?y1:y2; z1 = z0 + 1; assert (y3 == z1); } (z0 == y0 y1 == y0 – 1 y2 == y0 + 1 guard1 == x0 > 0 y3 == guard1?y1:y2 z1 == z0 + 1 y3 != z1) (assertion is now negated)

37
**Transformation to Equations**

int main () { int x0, y0; int z0 = y0; y1 = y0 - 1; y2 = y0 + 1; guard1 = x0 > 0; y3 = guard1?y1:y2; z1 = z0 + 1; assert (y3 == z1); } (z0 == y0 y1 == y0 – 1 y2 == y0 + 1 guard1 == x0 > 0 y3 == guard1?y1:y2 z1 == z0 + 1 y3 != z1) then (2) translates to SAT and uses a fast solver to find a counterexample

38
**Execution Representation**

(z0 == y0 y1 == y0 – 1 y2 == y0 + 1 guard1 == x0 > 0 y3 == guard1?y1:y2 z1 == z0 + 1 y3 != z1) Remove the assertion to get an equation for any execution of the program

39
**Execution Representation**

Counterexample (z0 == y0 y1 == y0 – 1 y2 == y0 + 1 guard1 == x0 > 0 y3 == guard1?y1:y2 z1 == z0 + 1 y3 != z1) x0 == 1 y0 == 5 z0 == 5 y1 == 4 y2 == 6 guard1 == true y3 == 4 z1 == 6 Execution represented by assignments to all variables in the equations

40
**Execution Representation**

Passing Trace (z0 == y0 y1 == y0 – 1 y2 == y0 + 1 guard1 == x0 > 0 y3 == guard1?y1:y2 z1 == z0 + 1 y3 == z1) x0 == 0 y0 == 5 z0 == 5 y1 == 4 y2 == 6 guard1 == false y3 == 6 z1 == 6 Use the assertion to find a passing trace.

41
**Execution Representation**

Counterexample Successful execution x0 == 1 y0 == 5 z0 == 5 y1 == 4 y2 == 6 guard1 == true y3 == 4 z1 == 6 x0 == 0 y0 == 5 z0 == 5 y1 == 4 y2 == 6 guard1 == false y3 == 6 z1 == 6 Execution represented by assignments to all variables in the equations

42
**d = number of changes (s) between two executions**

The Distance Metric d Counterexample Successful execution x0 == 1 y0 == 5 z0 == 5 y1 == 4 y2 == 6 guard1 == true y3 == 4 z1 == 6 x0 == 0 y0 == 5 z0 == 5 y1 == 4 y2 == 6 guard1 == false y3 == 6 z1 == 6 d = number of changes (s) between two executions

43
**d = number of changes (s) between two executions**

The Distance Metric d Counterexample Successful execution x0 == 1 y0 == 5 z0 == 5 y1 == 4 y2 == 6 guard1 == true y3 == 4 z1 == 6 x0 == 0 y0 == 5 z0 == 5 y1 == 4 y2 == 6 guard1 == false y3 == 6 z1 == 6 d = number of changes (s) between two executions

44
**d = number of changes (s) between two executions**

The Distance Metric d Counterexample Successful execution x0 == 1 y0 == 5 z0 == 5 y1 == 4 y2 == 6 guard1 == true y3 == 4 z1 == 6 x0 == 0 y0 == 5 z0 == 5 y1 == 4 y2 == 6 guard1 == false y3 == 6 z1 == 6 1 d = number of changes (s) between two executions

45
**d = number of changes (s) between two executions**

The Distance Metric d Counterexample Successful execution x0 == 1 y0 == 5 z0 == 5 y1 == 4 y2 == 6 guard1 == true y3 == 4 z1 == 6 x0 == 0 y0 == 5 z0 == 5 y1 == 4 y2 == 6 guard1 == false y3 == 6 z1 == 6 d = 3 d = number of changes (s) between two executions 3 is the minimum possible distance between the counterexample and a successful execution

46
**To compute the metric, add a new SAT variable for each potential **

The Distance Metric d Counterexample New SAT variables x0 == 1 y0 == 5 z0 == 5 y1 == 4 y2 == 6 guard1 == true y3 == 4 z1 == 6 x0 == (x0 != 1) y0 == (y0 != 5) z0 == (z0 != 5) y1 == (y1 != 4) y2 == (y2 != 6) guard1 == !guard1 y3 == (y3 != 4) z1 == (z1 != 6) To compute the metric, add a new SAT variable for each potential

47
The Distance Metric d Counterexample New SAT variables x0 == 1 y0 == 5 z0 == 5 y1 == 4 y2 == 6 guard1 == true y3 == 4 z1 == 6 x0 == (x0 != 1) y0 == (y0 != 5) z0 == (z0 != 5) y1 == (y1 != 4) y2 == (y2 != 6) guard1 == !guard1 y3 == (y3 != 4) z1 == (z1 != 6) And minimize the sum of the variables (treated as 0/1 values): a pseudo-Boolean problem

48
**Explanation with Distance Metrics**

CBMC Model checker C P+spec explain C BMC/constraint generator s -C S -C PBS Optimization tool

49
**Discussion Usefulness of Fault Localization Techniques Effectiveness:**

Precision: Low false negative Informative-ness: Enough clue to make a fix or refute Efficiency: Performance: It should run within the budget constraints. Scalability: Ability to run on real size programs. Information Usage: Making the most of the information available. Delta Debugging requires less information about the program than model checking. Delta Debugging scales better to larger programs. It’s comparison of oranges and apples, model checking is for critical piece of programs Model checking needs specification/assertion

50
**Suspicious components**

Discussion Input Test Cases Suspicious components Fault Localization Program Specification Comments Development History Developers

51
**Suspicious components**

Discussion Output No answer! Program Suspicious components Specification Fault Localization Some discussion about counterfactual reasoning … Why?

52
Thank you!

53
**What model checking gives us?**

We can query program (sub)paths with different characteristics. E.g. All failing paths All passing paths

54
The Distance Metric d An SSA-form oddity: Distance metric can compare values from code that doesn’t run in either execution being compared This can be the determining factor in which of two traces is most similar to a counterexample Counterintuitive but not necessarily incorrect: simply extends comparison to all hypothetical control flow paths

55
**Model Checking Model checking problem: M can represent a program.**

Given a transition system M and a property , verify if M satisfies . M can represent a program. can denote a desired property for the program, e.g.: Deadlock does not happen, a particular function is called at most once. Model checking procedure must either verify the program or return a counter-example (failing trace).

56
**What model checking gives us?**

We can query program (sub)paths with different characteristics. E.g. All failing paths All passing paths

58
**Explanation with Distance Metrics**

CBMC Model checker C P+spec explain C BMC/constraint generator s -C S -C PBS Optimization tool

59
**Typical State of program**

Similar presentations

OK

272: Software Engineering Fall 2012 Instructor: Tevfik Bultan Lecture 4: SMT-based Bounded Model Checking of Concurrent Software.

272: Software Engineering Fall 2012 Instructor: Tevfik Bultan Lecture 4: SMT-based Bounded Model Checking of Concurrent Software.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on communication skills in hindi Ppt on condition monitoring services Ppt on basel 3 Ppt on data collection methods aba Ppt on conservation of momentum calculator Ppt on pi in maths what is the range Ppt on cross-sectional study in epidemiology Ppt on biodegradable and non biodegradable photos Ppt on relation and function free download Salivary gland anatomy and physiology ppt on cells