Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surveying concurrency bug detectors based on types of detected bugs

根据bug类型综述并行bug检测器

  • Review
  • Published:
Science China Information Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Concurrency bugs widely exist in concurrent programs and have caused severe failures in the real world. Researchers have made significant progress in detecting concurrency bugs, which improves software reliability. In this paper, we survey the most up-to-date and well-known concurrency bug detectors. We categorize the existing detectors based on the types of concurrency bugs. Consequently, we analyze data race detectors, atomicity violation detectors, order violation detectors, and deadlock detectors, respectively. We also discuss some other techniques which are mostly related to concurrency bug detection, including schedule bounding techniques, interleaving optimizing techniques, path expanding techniques, and deterministic replay techniques. Additionally, we statistically analyze the reviewed detectors and get some interesting findings, for instance, nearly 86% of previous detectors focus on data races and atomicity violations, and dynamic approaches are popular (74%). We also discuss the limitations of previous detectors, finding that 91% of previous detectors suffer from false negatives and 64% of previous detectors suffer from runtime overhead. Based on the reviewed detectors and statistical analysis, we conclude some future research directions, including accuracy, performance, applicability, and integrality.

创新点

本文根据四种主要的并行bug类型,分别综述了数据竞争检测器、原子性失效检测器、顺序性失效检测器和死锁检测器,同时还分析了其他几种和并行bug检测相关的技术。统计分析了大量并行bug检测器,发现86%的检测器关注数据竞争和原子性失效,74%的检测器使用了动态分析方法,91%的检测器很容易产生漏报,64%的检测器容易引入运行时开销。本文还从精确度、性能、可用性和完整性四个方面对将来的研究方向进行了总结。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Leveson N G, Turner C S. An investigation of the therac-25 accidents. Computer, 1993, 26: 18–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Godefroid P, Nagappan N. Concurrency at Microsoft an Exploratory Survey. Technical Report, Microsoft Research, MSR-TR-2008-75. 2008

  3. Abdelqawy D, Kamel A, Omara F. A survey on testing concurrent and multi-threaded applications tools and methodologies. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Informatics and Applications, Kuala Terengganu, 2012. 458–470

    Google Scholar 

  4. Raza A. A review of race detection mechanisms. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computer Science Theory and Applications. Berlin: Springer, 2006. 534–543

    Google Scholar 

  5. Voung J W, Jhala R, Lerner S. RELAY: static race detection on millions of lines of code. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2007. 205–214

    Google Scholar 

  6. Engler D, Ashcraft K. RacerX: effective, static detection of race conditions and deadlocks. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. New York: ACM, 2003. 237–252

    Google Scholar 

  7. Qadeer S, Wu D. KISS: keep it simple and sequential. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2004. 14–24

    Google Scholar 

  8. Flanagan C, Freund S N. Type-based race detection for Java. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2000. 219–232

    Google Scholar 

  9. Grossman D. Type-safe multithreading in cyclone. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Types in Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2003. 13–25

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pratikakis P, Foster J S, Hicks M. Locksmith: practical static race detection for C. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst, 2011, 33: 1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sterling N. WARLOCK-A static data race analysis tool. In: Proceedings of USENIx Winter, San Diego, 1993. 97–106

    Google Scholar 

  12. Park S, Lu S, Zhou Y Y. CTrigger: exposing atomicity violation bugs from their hiding places. In: Proceedings of the 14th Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. New York: ACM, 2009. 25–36

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sen K. Race directed random testing of concurrent programs. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2008. 11–21

    Google Scholar 

  14. Park C S, Sen K. Randomized active atomicity violation detection in concurrent programs. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2008. 135–145

    Google Scholar 

  15. Yu J, Narayanasamy S, Pereira C, et al. Maple: a coverage-driven testing tool for multithreaded programs. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications. New York: ACM, 2012. 485–502

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lai Z, Cheung S C, Chan W K. Detecting atomic-set serializability violations in multithreaded programs through active randomized testing. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2010. 235–244

    Google Scholar 

  17. Huang J, Zhang C. Persuasive prediction of concurrency access anomalies. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. New York: ACM, 2011. 144–154

    Google Scholar 

  18. Park S, Vuduc R W, Harrold M J. Falcon: fault localization in concurrent programs. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2010. 245–254

    Google Scholar 

  19. Park S, Vuduc R, Harrold M J. A unified approach for localizing non-deadlock concurrency bugs. In: Proceedings of IEEE 5th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, Montreal, 2012. 51–60

    Google Scholar 

  20. Shi Y, Park S, Yin Z, et al. Do I use the wrong definition? DefUse: definition-use invariants for detecting concurrency and sequential bugs. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications. New York: ACM, 2010. 160–174

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Savage S, Burrows M, Nelson G, et al. Eraser: a dynamic data race detector for multithreaded programs. ACM Trans Comput Syst, 1997, 15: 391–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hammer C, Dolby J, Vaziri M, et al. Dynamic detection of atomic-set-serializability violations. In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2008. 231–240

    Google Scholar 

  23. Brat G, Visser W. Combining static analysis and model checking for software analysis. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, San Diego, 2001. 262–269

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chen J, Mac Donald S. Towards a better collaboration of static and dynamic analyses for testing concurrent programs. In: Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Systems: Testing, Analysis, and Debugging. New York: ACM, 2008. 8

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kasikci B, Zamfir C, Candea G. RaceMob: crowdsourced data race detection. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. New York: ACM, 2013. 406–422

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Wu Z D, Lu K, Wang X P, et al. Collaborative technique for concurrency bug detection. Int J Parall Program, 2015, 43: 260–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fiedor J, Krena B, Letko Z, et al. A Uniform Classification of Common Concurrency Errors. Technical Report, Brno University of Technology, FIT-TR-2010-03. 2010

  28. Lu S, Park S, Seo E, et al. Learning from mistakes: a comprehensive study on real world concurrency bug characteristics. In: Proceedings of Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. New York: ACM, 2008. 329–339

    Google Scholar 

  29. Joshi P, Park C S, Sen K, et al. A randomized dynamic program analysis technique for detecting real deadlocks. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2009. 110–120

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jin G, Thakur A, Liblit B, et al. Instrumentation and sampling strategies for cooperative concurrency bug isolation. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications. New York: ACM, 2010. 241–255

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Corp I. Parallel Inspector. http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-parallel-inspector. 2012

  32. Sadowski C, Yi J. How developers use data race detection tools. In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools. New York: ACM, 2014. 43–51

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bessey A, Block K, Chelf B, et al. A few billion lines of code later: using static analysis to find bugs in the real world. Commun ACM, 2010, 53: 66–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Erickson J, Musuvathi M, Burckhardt S, et al. Effective data-race detection for the kernel. In: Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, Berkeley, 2010. 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  35. Naik M, Aiken A, Whaley J. Effective static race detection for Java. In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2006. 308–319

    Google Scholar 

  36. Agarwal R, Sasturkar A, Wang L, et al. Optimized run-time race detection and atomicity checking using partial discovered types. In: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2005. 233–242

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Flanagan C, Freund S. Detecting race conditions in large programs. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT Workshop on Program Analysis for Software Tools and Engineering. New York: ACM, 2001. 90–96

    Google Scholar 

  38. Abadi M, Flanagan C, Freund S N. Types for safe locking: static race detection for Java. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst, 2006, 28: 207–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kahlon V, Sinha N, Kruus E, et al. Static data race detection for concurrent programs with asynchronous calls. In: Proceedings of the 7th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2009. 13–22

    Google Scholar 

  40. Flanagan C, Freund S N. Type inference against races. In: Static Analysis. Berlin: Springer, 2004. 116–132

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Kidd N, Lammich P, Touilli T, et al. A static technique for checking for multiple-variable data races. Softw Tools Tech Transfer, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kasikci B, Zamfir C, Candea G. Data races vs. data race bugs: telling the difference with portend. In: Proceedings of the 17th Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. New York: ACM, 2012. 185–198

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wester B, Devecsery D, Chen P M, et al. Parallelizing data race detection. In: Proceedings of the 18th Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. New York: ACM, 2013. 27–38

    Google Scholar 

  44. Effinger-Dean L, Lucia B, Ceze L, et al. IFRit: interference-free regions for dynamic data-race detection. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications. New York: ACM, 2012. 467–484

    Google Scholar 

  45. Flanagan C, Freund S N. FastTrack: efficient and precise dynamic race detection. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2009. 121–133

    Google Scholar 

  46. Marino D, Musuvathi M, Narayanasamy S. LiteRace: effective sampling for lightweight data-race detection. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2009. 134–143

    Google Scholar 

  47. Callahan R, Choi J D. Hybrid dynamic data race detection. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming. New York: ACM, 2003. 167–178

    Google Scholar 

  48. Choi J D. Efficient and precise data race detection for multithreaded object-oriented programs. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2002. 258–269

    Google Scholar 

  49. Helmbold D P, Mc Dowell C E. A Taxonomy of Race Detection Algorithms. Technical Report UCSC-CRL-94-35. 1994

  50. Ronsse M, de Bosschere K. RecPlay: a fully integrated practical record/replay system. ACM Trans Comput Syst, 1999, 17: 133–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Huang J, Meredith P O, Rosu G. Maximal sound predictive race detection with control flow abstraction. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2014. 337–348

    Google Scholar 

  52. Eslamimehr M, Palsberg J. Race directed scheduling of concurrent programs. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming. New York: ACM, 2014. 301–314

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wood B P, Ceze L, Grossman D. Low-level detection of language-level data races with LARD. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. New York: ACM, 2014. 671–686

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Sen K, Rosu G, Agha G. Detecting errors in multithreaded programs by generalized predictive analysis of executions. In: Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems. Berlin: Springer, 2005. 211–226

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. Yu T, Srisa-an W, Rothermel G. SimRT: an automated framework to support regression testing for data races. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 36th International Conference on Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2014. 48–59

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wood B P, Ceze L, Grossman D. Low-level detection of language-level data races with LARD. In: Proceedings of the 19th Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. New York: ACM, 2014. 671–686

    Google Scholar 

  57. Serebryany K, Potapenko A, Iskhodzhanov T, et al. Dynamic race detection with LLVM compiler. In: Runtime Verification. Berlin: Springer, 2011. 110–114

    Google Scholar 

  58. Lu K, Wu Z, Wang X, et al. RaceChecker: efficient identification of harmful data races. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed, and Network-Based Processing, Turku, 2015. 78–85

    Google Scholar 

  59. Narayanasamy S, Tigani J, Edwards A, et al. Automatically classifying benign and harmful data races using replay analysis. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2007. 22–31

    Google Scholar 

  60. Maiya P, Kanade A, Majumdar R. Race detection for android applications. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2014. 316–325

    Google Scholar 

  61. Hsiao C H, Yu J, Narayanasamy S, et al. Race detection for event-driven mobile applications. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2014. 326–336

    Google Scholar 

  62. Mao X G, Lei Y, Dai Z Y, et al. Slice-based statistical fault localization. J Syst Softw, 2014, 89: 51–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Park C S, Sen K, Iancu C. Scaling data race detection for partitioned global address space programs. In: Proceedings of the 27th International ACM Conference on Supercomputing. New York: ACM, 2013. 47–58

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  64. Jannesari A, Tichy W F. Identifying ad-hoc synchronization for enhanced race detection. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing, Atlanta, 2010. 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  65. Xiong W, Park S, Zhang J, et al. Ad hoc synchronization considered harmful. In: Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, Vancouver, 2010. 163–176

    Google Scholar 

  66. Tian C, Nagarajan V, Gupta R, et al. Dynamic recognition of synchronization operations for improved data race detection. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. New York: ACM, 2008. 143–154

    Google Scholar 

  67. Lu S, Park S, Hu C, et al. MUVI: automatically inferring multi-variable access correlations and detecting related semantic and concurrency bugs. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. New York: ACM, 2007. 103–116

    Google Scholar 

  68. Liu P, Dolby J, Zhang C. Finding incorrect compositions of atomicity. In: Proceedings of the 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2013. 158–168

    Google Scholar 

  69. Lu S, Tucek J, Qin F, et al. AVIO: detecting atomicity violations via access interleaving invariants. In: Proceedings of Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. New York: ACM, 2006. 37–48

    Google Scholar 

  70. Muzahid A, Otsuki N, Torrellas J. AtomTracker: a comprehensive approach to atomic region inference and violation detection. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture. New York: ACM, 2010. 287–297

    Google Scholar 

  71. Flanagan C, Freund S N. Atomizer: a dynamic atomicity checker for multithreaded programs. In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. New York: ACM, 2004. 256–267

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  72. Kidd N, Reps T, Dolby J, et al. Static Detection of Atomic-Set-Serializability Violations. Technical Report #1623. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2007

  73. Chen Q, Wang L, Yang Z, et al. HAVE: detecting atomicity violations via integrated dynamic and static analysis. In: Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. Berlin: Springer, 2009. 425–439

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  74. Ye C, Cheung S, Chan W, et al. Detection and resolution of atomicity violation in service composition. In: Proceedings of the 6th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2007. 235–244

    Google Scholar 

  75. Chew L, Lie D. Kivati: fast detection and prevention of atomicity violations. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Computer Systems. New York: ACM, 2010. 307–320

    Google Scholar 

  76. Lucia B, Devietti J, Strauss K, et al. Atom-aid: detecting and surviving atomicity violations. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Beijing, 2008. 277–288

    Google Scholar 

  77. Liblit B, Naik M, Zheng A X, et al. Public deployment of cooperative bug isolation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Remote Analysis and Measurement of Software Systems, 2004. 1: 57–62

    Google Scholar 

  78. Liblit B, Naik M, Zheng A X, et al. Scalable statistical bug isolation. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2005. 15–26

    Google Scholar 

  79. Lu S, Zhou P, Liu W, et al. PathExpander: architectural support for increasing the path coverage of dynamic bug detection. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture. New York: ACM, 2006. 38–52

    Google Scholar 

  80. Okur S, Dig D. How do developers use parallel libraries? In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT 20th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2012. 54

    Google Scholar 

  81. Liblit B, Aiken A, Zheng A X, et al. Bug isolation via remote program sampling. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2003. 141–154

    Google Scholar 

  82. Sorrentino F, Farzan A, Madhusudan P. PENELOPE: weaving threads to expose atomicity violations. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2010. 37–46

    Google Scholar 

  83. Lucia B, Ceze L. Finding concurrency bugs with context-aware communication graphs. In: Proceedings of the 42th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture. New York: ACM, 2009. 553–563

    Google Scholar 

  84. Zhang W, Sun C, Lu S. ConMem: detecting severe concurrency bugs through an effect-oriented approach. In: Proceedings of the 15th Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. New York: ACM, 2010. 179–192

    Google Scholar 

  85. Zhang W, Lim J, Olichandran R, et al. ConSeq: detecting concurrency bugs through sequential errors. In: Proceedings of the 16th Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. New York: ACM, 2011. 251–264

    Google Scholar 

  86. Gao Q, Zhang W, Chen Z, et al. 2ndStrike: toward manifesting hidden concurrency typestate bugs. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. New York: ACM, 2012. 239–250

    Google Scholar 

  87. Yu J, Narayanasamy S. A case for an interleaving constrained shared-memory multi-processor. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture. New York: ACM, 2009. 325–336

    Google Scholar 

  88. Sangmin P, Mary J H, Richard V. Griffin: grouping suspicious memory-access patterns to improve understanding of concurrency bugs. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. New York: ACM, 2013. 134–144

    Google Scholar 

  89. Burckhardt S, Kothari P, Musuvathi M, et al. A randomized scheduler with probabilistic guarantees of finding bugs. ACM Sigplan Notices, 2010, 45: 167–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Joshi P, Naik M, Sen K, et al. An effective dynamic analysis for detecting generalized deadlocks. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2010. 327–336

    Google Scholar 

  91. Marino D, Hammer C, Dolby J, et al. Detecting deadlock in programs with data-centric synchronization. In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering, San Francisco, 2013. 322–331

    Google Scholar 

  92. Koskinen E, Herlihy M. Dreadlocks: efficient deadlock detection. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures. New York: ACM, 2008. 297–303

    Google Scholar 

  93. Jula H, Tralamazza D, Zamfir C, et al. Deadlock immunity: enabling systems to defend against deadlocks. In: Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. Berkeley: USENIX Association, 2008. 295–308

    Google Scholar 

  94. Cai Y, Chan W. MagicFuzzer: scalable deadlock detection for large-scale applications. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Software Engineering, Zurich, 2012. 606–616

    Google Scholar 

  95. Li T, Ellis C S, Lebeck A R, et al. Pulse: a dynamic deadlock detection mechanism using speculative execution. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference. Berkeley: USENIX Association, 2005. 31–44

    Google Scholar 

  96. Naik M, Park C S, Sen K, et al. Effective static deadlock detection. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering, Vancouver, 2009. 386–396

    Google Scholar 

  97. Samak M, Ramanathan M K. Trace driven dynamic deadlock detection and reproduction. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming. New York: ACM, 2014. 29–42

    Google Scholar 

  98. Nistor A, Luo Q, Pradel M, et al. Ballerina: automatic generation and clustering of efficient random unit tests for multithreaded code. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Software Engineering, Zurich, 2012. 727–737

    Google Scholar 

  99. Cai Y, Wu S, Chan W K. ConLock: a constraint-based approach to dynamic checking on deadlocks in multithreaded programs. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 36th International Conference on Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2014. 491–502

    Google Scholar 

  100. Farzan A, Holzer A, Razavi N, et al. Con2colic testing. In: Proceedings of the 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2013. 37–47

    Google Scholar 

  101. Musuvathi M, Qadeer S, Ball T, et al. Finding and reproducing heisenbugs in concurrent programs. In: Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2008. 267–280

    Google Scholar 

  102. Wang C, Said M, Gupta A. Coverage guided systematic concurrency testing. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, Honolulu, 2011. 221–230

    Google Scholar 

  103. Yang Y, Chen X, Gopalakrishnan G. Inspect: a Runtime Model Checker for Multithreaded C Programs. University of Utah, Technology Report UUCS-08-004. 2008

  104. Emmi M, Qadeer S, Rakamari Z. Delay-bounded scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM SIGPLANSIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. New York: ACM, 2011. 411–422

    Google Scholar 

  105. Godefroid P. Model checking for programming languages using VeriSoft. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLANSIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. New York: ACM, 1997. 174–186

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  106. Sandeep B, Sorav B, Akash L. Variable and thread bounding for systematic testing of multithreaded programs. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. New York: ACM, 2013. 145–155

    Google Scholar 

  107. Musuvathi M, Qadeer S. Iterative context bounding for systematic testing of multithreaded programs. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2007. 446–455

    Google Scholar 

  108. Thomson P, Donaldson A F, Betts A. Concurrency testing using schedule bounding: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming. New York: ACM, 2014. 15–28

    Google Scholar 

  109. Bergan T, Ceze L, Grossman D. Input-covering schedules for multithreaded programs. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications. New York: ACM, 2013. 677–692

    Google Scholar 

  110. Deng D, Zhang W, Wang B, et al. Understanding the interleaving-space overlap across inputs and software versions. In: Proceedings of the 4th USENIX Conference on Hot Topics in Parallelism. Berkeley: USENIX Association, 2012. 17

    Google Scholar 

  111. Deng D, Zhang W, Lu S. Efficient concurrency-bug detection across inputs. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications. New York: ACM, 2013. 785–802

    Google Scholar 

  112. Radoi C, Dig D. Practical static race detection for Java parallel loops. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. New York: ACM, 2013. 178–190

    Google Scholar 

  113. Dimitrov D, Raychev V, Vechev M, et al. Commutativity race detection. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2014. 305–315

    Google Scholar 

  114. Sen K, Agha G. A race-detection and flipping algorithm for automated testing of multi-threaded programs. In: Hardware and Software, Verification and Testing. Berlin: Springer, 2007. 166–182

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  115. Jagannath V, Gligoric M, Jin D, et al. Improved multithreaded unit testing. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2011. 223–233

    Google Scholar 

  116. Yu Y, Rodeheffer T, Chen W. Racetrack: efficient detection of data race conditions via adaptive tracking. ACM SIGOPS Oper Syst Rev, 2005, 39: 221–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Bond M D, Coons K E, Mc Kinley K S. PACER: proportional detection of data races. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2010. 255–268

    Google Scholar 

  118. Pozniansky E, Schuster A. MultiRace: efficient on-the-fly data race detection in multithreaded C++ programs. Concurr Comput Pract Exper, 2007, 19: 327–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Biswas S, Huang J, Sengupta A, et al. DoubleChecker: efficient sound and precise atomicity checking. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2014. 28–39

    Google Scholar 

  120. Cadar C, Sen K. Symbolic execution for software testing: three decades later. Commun ACM, 2013, 56: 82–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Cadar C, Dunbar D, Engler D R. KLEE: unassisted and automatic generation of high-coverage tests for complex systems programs. In: Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. Berkeley: USENIX Association, 2008. 209–224

    Google Scholar 

  122. Ciortea L, Zamfir C, Bucur S, et al. Cloud9: a software testing service. ACM SIGOPS Oper Syst Rev, 2010, 43: 5–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Cadar C, Ganesh V, Pawlowski P M, et al. EXE: automatically generating inputs of death. ACM Trans Inf Syst Secur, 2008, 12: 322–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Liu W W, Wang J, Chen H W, et al. Symbolic model checking APSL. Front Comput Sci China, 2009, 3: 130–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Altekar G, Stoica I. ODR: output-deterministic replay for multicore debugging. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 22nd Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. New York: ACM, 2009. 193–206

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  126. Huang J, Zhang C. LEAN: simplifying concurrency bug reproduction via replay-supported execution reduction. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications. New York: ACM, 2012. 451–466

    Google Scholar 

  127. Huang J, Liu P, Zhang C. LEAP: lightweight deterministic multi-processor replay of concurrent java programs. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2010. 207–216

    Google Scholar 

  128. Veeraraghavan K, Lee D, Wester B, et al. DoublePlay: parallelizing sequential logging and replay. ACM Trans Comput Syst, 2012, 30: 3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Weiss Z, Harter T, Arpaci-Dusseau A C, et al. ROOT: replaying multithreaded traces with resource-oriented ordering. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. New York: ACM, 2013. 373–387

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  130. Huang J, Zhang C, Dolby J. CLAP: recording local executions to reproduce concurrency failures. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2013. 141–152

    Google Scholar 

  131. Devietti J, Lucia B, Ceze L, et al. DMP: deterministic shared memory multiprocessing. In: Proceedings of the 14th Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. New York: ACM, 2009. 85–96

    Google Scholar 

  132. Zhou X, Lu K, Wang X, et al. Exploiting parallelism in deterministic shared memory multiprocessing. J Parall Distrib Comput, 2012, 72: 716–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Burnim J, Sen K. Asserting and checking determinism for multithreaded programs. In: Proceedings of the 7th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2009. 3–12

    Google Scholar 

  134. Yin Z, Yuan D, Zhou Y, et al. How do fixes become bugs? In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. New York: ACM, 2011. 26–36

    Google Scholar 

  135. Sidiroglou S, Ioannidis S, Keromytis A D. Band-aid patching. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Hot Topics in System Dependability. Berkeley: USENIX Association, 2007. 102–106

    Google Scholar 

  136. Gu Z, Barr E T, Hamilton D J, et al. Has the bug really been fixed? In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Cape Town, 2010. 55–64

  137. Jin G, Song L, Zhang W, et al. Automated atomicity-violation fixing. In: Proceedings of the 32th Annual ACMSIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. New York: ACM, 2011. 389–400

    Google Scholar 

  138. Jin G, Zhang W, Deng D, et al. Automated concurrency-bug fixing. In: Proceedings of the 10th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. Berkeley: USENIX Association, 2012. 221–246

    Google Scholar 

  139. Liu P, Zhang C. Axis: automatically fixing atomicity violations through solving control constraints. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, Zurich, 2012. 299–309

    Google Scholar 

  140. Deng D D, Jin G L, de Kruijf M, et al. Fixing, preventing, and recovering from concurrency bugs. Sci China Inf Sci, 2015, 58: 052105

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science and Technology on Parallel and Distributed Processing Laboratory, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, 410073, China

    Zhendong Wu, Kai Lu & Xiaoping Wang

  2. College of Computer, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, 410073, China

    Zhendong Wu, Kai Lu & Xiaoping Wang

Authors
  1. Zhendong Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kai Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaoping Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Lu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, Z., Lu, K. & Wang, X. Surveying concurrency bug detectors based on types of detected bugs. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 60, 031101 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-015-0203-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-015-0203-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation