SABER: smart analysis based error reduction

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we present an approach to automatically detect high impact coding errors in large Java applications which use frameworks. These high impact errors cause serious performance degradation and outages in real world production environments, are very time-consuming to detect, and potentially cost businesses thousands of dollars. Based on 3 years experience working with IBM customer production systems, we have identified over 400 high impact coding patterns, from which we have been able to distill a small set of pattern detection algorithms. These algorithms use deep static analysis, thus moving problem detection earlier in the development cycle from production to development. Additionally, we have developed an automatic false positive filtering mechanism based on domain specific knowledge to achieve a level of usability acceptable to IBM field engineers. Our approach also provides necessary contextual information around the sources of the problems to help in problem remediation. We outline how our approach to problem determination can be extended to multiple programming models and domains. We have implemented this problem determination approach in the SABER tool and have used it successfully to detect many serious code defects in several large commercial applications. This paper shows results from four such applications that had over 60 coding defects.

REFERENCES

• 1: Alfred V. Aho , Ravi Sethi , Jeffrey D. Ullman, Compilers: principles, techniques, and tools, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1986
• 2: Deepak Alur , Dan Malks , John Crupi, Core J2EE Patterns: Best Practices and Design Strategies, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001
• 3: Manuvir Das , Sorin Lerner , Mark Seigle, ESP: path-sensitive program verification in polynomial time, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2002 Conference on Programming language design and implementation, June 17-19, 2002, Berlin, Germany
• 4: Thomas Ball , Sriram K. Rajamani, The SLAM project: debugging system software via static analysis, Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.1-3, January 16-18, 2002, Portland, Oregon
• 5: William R. Bush , Jonathan D. Pincus , David J. Sielaff, A static analyzer for finding dynamic programming errors, Software—Practice & Experience, v.30 n.7, p.775-802, June 2000 [doi>10.1002/(SICI)1097-024X(200006)30:7<775::AID-SPE309>3.0.CO;2-H]
• 6: Hao Chen , David Wagner, MOPS: an infrastructure for examining security properties of software, Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, November 18-22, 2002, Washington, DC, USA [doi>10.1145/586110.586142]
• 7: Jong-Deok Choi , Manish Gupta , Mauricio Serrano , Vugranam C. Sreedhar , Sam Midkiff, Escape analysis for Java, Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, p.1-19, November 01-05, 1999, Denver, Colorado, United States
• 8: James C. Corbett , Matthew B. Dwyer , John Hatcliff , Shawn Laubach , Corina S. Păsăreanu , Robby , Hongjun Zheng, Bandera: extracting finite-state models from Java source code, Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering, p.439-448, June 04-11, 2000, Limerick, Ireland [doi>10.1145/337180.337234]
• 9: D. L. Detlefs. An overview of the extended static checking system. SIGSOFT Proceedings of the First Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Practice, January 1996, 1--9.
• 10: Maryam Emami , Rakesh Ghiya , Laurie J. Hendren, Context-sensitive interprocedural points-to analysis in the presence of function pointers, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1994 conference on Programming language design and implementation, p.242-256, June 20-24, 1994, Orlando, Florida, United States
• 11: D. Engler, B. Chelf, A. Chou and S. Hallem, Checking System Rules Using System-Specific, Programmer-Written Compiler Extensions, In Proc. of SOSP, October 2000, 1--16.
• 12: David Evans, Static detection of dynamic memory errors, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1996 conference on Programming language design and implementation, p.44-53, May 21-24, 1996, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
• 13: Seth Hallem , Benjamin Chelf , Yichen Xie , Dawson Engler, A system and language for building system-specific, static analyses, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2002 Conference on Programming language design and implementation, June 17-19, 2002, Berlin, Germany
• 14: D. Hovemeyer and W. Pugh, Finding Bugs is Easy, http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/bugs/docs/findbugsPaper.pdf
• 15: Daniel Jackson, Aspect: detecting bugs with abstract dependences, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), v.4 n.2, p.109-145, April 1995 [doi>10.1145/210134.210135]
• 16: S.C. Johnson. Lint, a C program checker. Unix Programmer's Manual, 4.2 Berkeley Software Distribution Supplementary Docs; U.C. Berkeley, 1984.
• 17: L. Koved, JABA-JAva Bytecode Analysis nhttp://www.research.ibm.com/javasec/JaBA.html.
• 18: Larry Koved , Marco Pistoia , Aaron Kershenbaum, Access rights analysis for Java, Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, November 04-08, 2002, Seattle, Washington, USA
• 19: Object Technology International, Inc. Eclipse platform technical overview, July 2001, http://www.eclipse.org/whitepapers/eclipse-overview.pdf.
• 20: Parasoft Corporation. Automatic Java{TM} software and component testing: using Jtest to automate unit testing and coding standard enforcement, http://www.parasoft.com/jsp/products/article.jsp?articleId=839&product=Jtest.
• 21: J. Viega , J. T. Bloch , Y. Kohno , G. McGraw, ITS4: A static vulnerability scanner for C and C++ code, Proceedings of the 16th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, p.257, December 11-15, 2000

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.4 Software/Program Verification
          Subjects: Validation

General Terms:
Languages, Performance, Verification

Keywords:
defect understanding, frameworks, program analysis