skip to main content
10.1145/2413247.2413256acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesconextConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Inferring networked system models from behavior traces

Published:10 December 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Networked systems are often difficult to debug and understand. A common way of gaining insight into system behavior is to inspect execution logs and documentation. Unfortunately, manual log inspection is difficult and documentation is often incomplete and out of sync with the implementation.

To provide developers with more insight into networked systems I am working Dynoptic, a tool that infers a concise and accurate system model, in the form of a communicating finite state machine from logs. Developers can use the inferred models to understand behavior, detect anomalies, verify known bugs, diagnose new bugs, and increase their confidence in the correctness of their implementation. Unlike most related work, Dynoptic does not require developer-written scenarios, specifications, negative execution examples, or other complex input. Dynoptic processes the logs most systems already produce and requires developers only to specify a set of regular expressions for parsing the logs.

References

  1. A. Annichini, A. Bouajjani, and M. Sighireanu. TReX: A Tool for Reachability Analysis of Complex Systems. In CAV, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. I. Beschastnikh, Y. Brun, M. D. Ernst, A. Krishnamurthy, and T. E. Anderson. Mining Temporal Invariants from Partially Ordered Logs. OSR, 45(3):39--46, Dec. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. I. Beschastnikh, Y. Brun, S. Schneider, M. Sloan, and M. D. Ernst. Leveraging Existing Instrumentation to Automatically Infer Invariant-Constrained Models. In ESEC/FSE, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. W. Biermann and J. A. Feldman. On the Synthesis of Finite-State Machines from Samples of Their Behavior. IEEE TC, 21(6):592--597, 1972. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. B. Boigelot and P. Godefroid. Symbolic Verification of Communication Protocols with Infinite StateSpaces using QDDs. Form. Methods Syst. Des., 14(3):237--255, May 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. Brand and P. Zafiropulo. On Communicating Finite-State Machines. JACM, 30(2):323--342, Apr. 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. X. J. Chen and H. Ural. Construction of Deadlock-free Designs of Communication Protocols from Observations. The Computer Journal, 45(2):162--173, Jan. 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, and H. Veith. Counterexample-guided Abstraction Refinement. In CAV. Springer, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. Heussner, T. Gall, and G. Sutre. Extrapolation-Based Path Invariants for Abstraction Refinement of Fifo Systems. In SPIN, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. Heussner, T. Le Gall, and G. Sutre. McScM: a general framework for the verification of communicating machines. In TACAS, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. L. Lamport. Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System. CACM, 21(7):558--565, July 1978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. D. Lo, L. Mariani, and M. Pezzè. Automatic steering of behavioral model inference. In ESEC/FSE, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D. Lorenzoli, L. Mariani, and M. Pezzè. Automatic generation of software behavioral models. In ICSE, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. L. Mariani and M. Pezzè. Dynamic Detection of COTS Component Incompatibility. IEEE Software, 24(5):76--85, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. S. P. Reiss and M. Renieris. Encoding Program Executions. In ICSE, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. H. Ural and H. Yenigün. Towards Design Recovery from Observations, volume 3235, chapter 9, pages 133--149. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. W. Xu, L. Huang, A. Fox, D. Patterson, and M. Jordan. Experience Mining Google's Production Console Logs. In SLAML, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Inferring networked system models from behavior traces

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CoNEXT Student '12: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on CoNEXT student workshop
      December 2012
      78 pages
      ISBN:9781450317795
      DOI:10.1145/2413247

      Copyright © 2012 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 10 December 2012

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate198of789submissions,25%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader