Biblio
Code optimization is an essential feature for compilers and almost all software products are released by compiler optimizations. Consequently, bugs in code optimization will inevitably cast significant impact on the correctness of software systems. Locating optimization bugs in compilers is challenging as compilers typically support a large amount of optimization configurations. Although prior studies have proposed to locate compiler bugs via generating witness test programs, they are still time-consuming and not effective enough. To address such limitations, we propose an automatic bug localization approach, ODFL, for locating compiler optimization bugs via differentiating finer-grained options in this study. Specifically, we first disable the fine-grained options that are enabled by default under the bug-triggering optimization levels independently to obtain bug-free and bug-related fine-grained options. We then configure several effective passing and failing optimization sequences based on such fine-grained options to obtain multiple failing and passing compiler coverage. Finally, such generated coverage information can be utilized via Spectrum-Based Fault Localization formulae to rank the suspicious compiler files. We run ODFL on 60 buggy GCC compilers from an existing benchmark. The experimental results show that ODFL significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art compiler bug isolation approach RecBi in terms of all the evaluated metrics, demonstrating the effectiveness of ODFL. In addition, ODFL is much more efficient than RecBi as it can save more than 88% of the time for locating bugs on average.
ISSN: 1534-5351
Proving secure compilation of partial programs typically requires back-translating an attack against the compiled program to an attack against the source program. To prove back-translation, one can syntactically translate the target attacker to a source one-i.e., syntax-directed back-translation-or show that the interaction traces of the target attacker can also be emitted by source attackers—i.e., trace-directed back-translation. Syntax-directed back-translation is not suitable when the target attacker may use unstructured control flow that the source language cannot directly represent. Trace-directed back-translation works with such syntactic dissimilarity because only the external interactions of the target attacker have to be mimicked in the source, not its internal control flow. Revealing only external interactions is, however, inconvenient when sharing memory via unforgeable pointers, since information about shared pointers stashed in private memory is not present on the trace. This made prior proofs unnecessarily complex, since the generated attacker had to instead stash all reachable pointers. In this work, we introduce more informative data-flow traces, combining the best of syntax- and trace-directed back-translation in a simpler technique that handles both syntactic dissimilarity and memory sharing well, and that is proved correct in Coq. Additionally, we develop a novel turn-taking simulation relation and use it to prove a recomposition lemma, which is key to reusing compiler correctness in such secure compilation proofs. We are the first to mechanize such a recomposition lemma in the presence of memory sharing. We use these two innovations in a secure compilation proof for a code generation compiler pass between a source language with structured control flow and a target language with unstructured control flow, both with safe pointers and components.