Accentuating the positive

Weeratunge, Dasarath; Zhang, Xiangyu; Jaganathan, Suresh

doi:10.1145/2048066.2048071

Cited by 27 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also present crisp results for the theoretical guarantees behind our approach and an analysis of the time complexity. Weeratunge et al [46] use a set of good executions to derive an atomicity "specification", i.e., pairs of accesses that are atomic, and then enforce it using locks.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Root Causing Linearizability Violations

Çirişci

Enea

Farzan

et al. 2020

Computer Aided Verification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linearizability is the de facto correctness criterion for concurrent data type implementations. Violation of linearizability is witnessed by an error trace in which the outputs of individual operations do not match those of a sequential execution of the same operations. Extensive work has been done in discovering linearizability violations, but little work has been done in trying to provide useful hints to the programmer when a violation is discovered by a tester tool. In this paper, we propose an approach that identifies the root causes of linearizability errors in the form of code blocks whose atomicity is required to restore linearizability. The key insight of this paper is that the problem can be reduced to a simpler algorithmic problem of identifying minimal root causes of conflict serializability violation in an error trace combined with a heuristic for identifying which of these are more likely to be the true root cause of non-linearizability. We propose theoretical results outlining this reduction, and an algorithm to solve the simpler problem. We have implemented our approach and carried out several experiments on realistic concurrent data types demonstrating its efficiency.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Implementing these repairs in the context of a concrete concurrent object using synchronization primitives (eg., locks) is orthogonal and beyond the scope of this paper. Some solutions are proposed in [28,29,46].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Root Causing Linearizability Violations

Çirişci

Enea

Farzan

et al. 2020

Computer Aided Verification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Atomicity checking and data race detection techniques: Several researchers proposed dynamic or static techniques to check data races or atomicity violations in concurrent programs. Some approaches require programmers to provide test drivers, but constructing test drivers for large applications is time consuming.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although a lot of research has been carried out on detecting low‐level data races and high‐level atomicity violations , there is little research on cataloguing the real causes of such bugs. Because such bugs are still common, educating the developers and providing automated support on program repair is very important.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study and toolkit of CHECK‐THEN‐ACT idioms of Java concurrent collections

Lin

Dig

2015

Software Testing Verif & Rel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryConcurrent collections are widely used in concurrent programs. However, programmers can misuse these concurrent collections when composing two operations where a check on the collection (e.g., collection contains an element) precedes an action (e.g., inserting an element). Unless the whole composition is atomic, the program contains an atomicity violation bug. This paper presents an extensive empirical study of CHECK‐THEN‐ACT idioms of Java (Oracle Corporation, Redwood, CA, USA) concurrent collections. We analyze 28 widely used open‐source Java projects (comprising 6.4 million lines of code) that use Java concurrent collections. We study the correct and incorrect use of idioms and the evolution of the programs with respect to idioms. Our tool, CTADETECTOR, detects and corrects misused idioms. CTADETECTOR discovered 60 bugs that were confirmed and fixed by developers. This shows that CHECK‐THEN‐ACT idioms are commonly misused in practice, and correcting them is important. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

UNICORN: a unified approach for localizing non‐deadlock concurrency bugs

Park

Vuduc

Harrold

2014

Software Testing Verif & Rel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryUNICORN is an automated dynamic pattern‐detection‐based technique that finds and ranks problematic memory access patterns for non‐deadlock concurrency bugs. It monitors pairs of memory accesses, combines the pairs into problematic patterns and ranks the patterns by their suspiciousness scores. It detects significant classes of bug types, including order violations and both single‐variable and multivariable atomicity violations, which have been shown to be the most important classes of non‐deadlock concurrency bugs. This paper describes the UNICORN approach, its implementations in Java and C++, and evaluates these implementations empirically. The evaluation shows that UNICORN can effectively compute and rank the patterns that represent concurrency bugs, and perform computation and ranking with reasonable efficiency. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Accentuating the positive

Cited by 27 publications

References 30 publications

Root Causing Linearizability Violations

Root Causing Linearizability Violations

A study and toolkit of CHECK‐THEN‐ACT idioms of Java concurrent collections

UNICORN: a unified approach for localizing non‐deadlock concurrency bugs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About