CONCURRIT: a domain specific language for reproducing concurrency bugs

We present CONCURRIT, a domain-specific language (DSL) for reproducing concurrency bugs. Given some partial information about the nature of a bug in an application, a programmer can write a CONCURRIT script to formally and concisely specify a set of thread schedules to explore in order to find a schedule exhibiting the bug. Further, the programmer can specify how these thread schedules should be searched to find a schedule that reproduces the bug. We implemented CONCURRIT as an embedded DSL in C++, which uses manual or automatic source instrumentation to partially control the scheduling of the software under test. Using CONCURRIT, we were able to write concise tests to reproduce concurrency bugs in a variety of benchmarks, including the Mozilla's SpiderMonkey JavaScript engine, Memcached, Apache's HTTP server, and MySQL.

[1]  Pravesh Kothari,et al.  A randomized scheduler with probabilistic guarantees of finding bugs , 2010, ASPLOS XV.

[2]  Sebastian Burckhardt,et al.  Preemption Sealing for Efficient Concurrency Testing , 2010, TACAS.

[3]  Moonzoo Kim,et al.  A Comparative Study of Software Model Checkers as Unit Testing Tools: An Industrial Case Study , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[4]  G. Gopalakrishnan,et al.  Inspect : A Runtime Model Checker for Multithreaded C Programs , 2008 .

[5]  Patrice Godefroid,et al.  Partial-Order Methods for the Verification of Concurrent Systems , 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[6]  Madan Musuvathi,et al.  Fair stateless model checking , 2008, PLDI '08.

[7]  Alastair F. Donaldson,et al.  Software Model Checking , 2014, Computing Handbook, 3rd ed..

[8]  Yuanyuan Zhou,et al.  AVIO: Detecting Atomicity Violations via Access-Interleaving Invariants , 2007, IEEE Micro.

[9]  Grigore Rosu,et al.  Improved multithreaded unit testing , 2011, ESEC/FSE '11.

[10]  Kai Li,et al.  The PARSEC benchmark suite: Characterization and architectural implications , 2008, 2008 International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT).

[11]  Eran Yahav,et al.  Testing atomicity of composed concurrent operations , 2011, OOPSLA '11.

[12]  Vadim S. Mutilin.  Concurrent Testing of Java Components Using Java PathFinder , 2006, Second International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation (isola 2006).

[13]  Harish Patil,et al.  Pin: building customized program analysis tools with dynamic instrumentation , 2005, PLDI '05.

[14]  Madan Musuvathi,et al.  Iterative context bounding for systematic testing of multithreaded programs , 2007, PLDI '07.

[15]  Radu Iosif,et al.  Symmetry Reduction Criteria for Software Model Checking , 2002, SPIN.

[16]  Darko Marinov,et al.  Change-aware preemption prioritization , 2011, ISSTA '11.

[17]  Yuanyuan Zhou,et al.  PRES: probabilistic replay with execution sketching on multiprocessors , 2009, SOSP '09.

[18]  William Pugh,et al.  Unit testing concurrent software , 2007, ASE.

[19]  Patrice Godefroid,et al.  Software Model Checking: The VeriSoft Approach , 2005, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[20]  Koushik Sen,et al.  Race directed random testing of concurrent programs , 2008, PLDI '08.

[21]  Eran Yahav,et al.  Cartesian Partial-Order Reduction , 2007, SPIN.

[22]  Salvatore La Torre,et al.  Analyzing recursive programs using a fixed-point calculus , 2009, PLDI '09.

[23]  Ion Stoica,et al.  ODR: output-deterministic replay for multicore debugging , 2009, SOSP '09.

[24]  Koushik Sen,et al.  RADBench: A Concurrency Bug Benchmark Suite , 2011, HotPar.

[25]  Koushik Sen,et al.  A trace simplification technique for effective debugging of concurrent programs , 2010, FSE '10.

[26]  Daniel Hoffman,et al.  Tool Support for Testing Concurrent Java Components , 2003, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..