Automated Software Transplantation

Transcription

1 Automated Software Transplantation Earl T. Mark Yue Alexandru Justyna Barr Harman Jia Marginean Petke CREST, University College London

2 Why Autotransplantation? ~100 players Why not handle H.264? Video Player Check open source repositories Start from scratch

3 Related Work Manual Code Transplants Clone Detection Code Migration In-Situ Code Reusal Dependence Analysis Feature Location Automatic Error Fixing Code Salvaging Autotransplantation Feature Extraction In-Situ Code Reuse Synchronising Manual Transplants Automatic Replay Copy- Paste

4 Related Work Miles et al.: In situ reuse of logically extracted functional components In-Situ Code Reusal Manual Code Transplants Debugger Automatic Error Fixing Binary Organ Autotransplantation Running Program

5 Related Work Sidiroglou-Douskos et al.: Automatic Error Elimination by Multi-Application Code Transfer Manual Code Transplants Automatic Error Fixing In-Situ Code Reusal Donors Autotransplantation

6 Related Work Autotransplantation Manual Code Transplants In-Situ Code Reusal Automatic Error Fixing

7 Human Organ Transplantation

8 Automated Software Transplantation Donor Manual Work: Organ Entry V ENTRY Organ O Organ s Test Suite Organ s Test Suite Implantation Point

9 μtrans Donor Stage 1: Static Analysis Stage 2: Genetic Programming Stage 3: Organ Implantation Organ s Test Suite Beneficiary

10 Stage 1 Static Analysis Vein Donor Organ ENTRY OE H Implantation Point Matching Table Dependency Graph Donor: Stm: int x = X 10; -> : -> Decl: int int A, B, x; C

11 Stage 2 GP Individual S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Sn Donor Variable ID V1 D V2 D Matching Table Variable ID (set) V3 H V4 H H V5 V1 H V2 H Genetic Programming Var Matching Stateme nts fitness(i) = M1: V1 D M2: V2 D Does it compile? S1 S7 S73 V1 H V4 H ( 1 3 (1 + TX i T + TP i T ) i 2 I C 0 i/2 I C Strong Weak Proxies: Proxies: Does it Does produce it execute the correct test cases output? without crashing?

12 Research Questions Acceptance Regression Tests Donor Organ RQ1: RQ2: RQ4: RQ3: Do Have Is autotransplantation we How we break about really the the added initial computational new functionality? useful? effort?

13 Research Questions RQ1: Do we break the initial functionality? RQ2: Have we really added new functionality? Empirical Study 15 Transplantations 300 Runs 5 Donors 3 s Case Study: H.264 Encoding Transplantation RQ3: How about the computational effort? RQ4: Is autotransplantation useful?

14 Validation Regression Tests Donor Acceptance Tests RQ1.1 Augmented Regression Tests RQ1.2 Acceptance Tests RQ2 Beneficiary Manual Validation

15 ISSTA * * Artifact Consistent * Complete * Well Documented * Easy to Reuse * Evaluated * AEC * Subjects Subjects Type Size KLOC Reg. Tests Organ Test Suite Idct Donor Mytar Donor Cflow Donor Webserver Donor TuxCrypt Donor Pidgin Cflow SoX Case Study x264 Donor 63-5 VLC Minimal size: 0.4k; Max size: 422k; Average Donor: 16k; Average : 213k;

16 Experimental Methodology Count LOC and Setup CLOC Donor x 20 Implantation Point Organ s Test Suite OE Validation Test Suites GNU Time Ubuntu 14.10, 16 GB Ram 8 threads μscalpel Beneficiary Implantation Point Coverage Information: Gcov Organ

17 ISSTA * * Artifact Consistent * Complete * Well Documented * Easy to Reuse * Evaluated * AEC * Empirical Study RQ1,2 All Test Suites Donor Passed Regression Regression++ Acceptance Idct Pidgin Mytar Pidgin Web Pidgin Cflow Pidgin Tux Pidgin Idct Cflow Mytar Cflow Web Cflow Cflow Cflow Tux Cflow Idct SoX Mytar SoX Web SoX Cflow SoX Tux SoX TOTAL 188/ / / /300 RQ1.1 RQ1.2 RQ2

18 ISSTA * * Artifact Consistent * Complete * Well Documented * Easy to Reuse * Evaluated * AEC * Empirical Study RQ3 Donor Timing Information Execution Time (minutes) Std. Dev. Idct Pidgin Mytar Pidgin Web Pidgin Cflow Pidgin Tux Pidgin Idct Cflow Mytar Cflow Web Cflow Cflow Cflow Tux Cflow Idct SoX Mytar SoX Web SoX Cflow SoX Tux SoX Total Average 334 (min) 10 (Average) RQ3 Total 72 (hours)

19 ISSTA * * Artifact Consistent * Complete * Well Documented * Easy to Reuse * Evaluated * AEC * Case Study RQ4 Second Annual MSU MPEG-4 AVC/ H.264 Codecs Comparison MSU Sixth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Transplant Time & Test Suites Video Codecs Comparison, Time with (hours) ~24% better Regression encoding Regression++ Acceptance than second place. H % 100% 100% Doom9's 2005 Codec Shoot-Out

20 Automated Software Transplantation μtrans D Manual Work: Organ Entry Organ s Test Suite V ENTRY O H Organ s Test Suite Donor Stage 1: Static Analysis Stage 2: Genetic Programming Stage 3: Organ Implantation Implantation Point Organ s Test Suite Beneficiary Validation ISSTA * * Artifact Consistent * Complete * Well Documented * Easy to Reuse * Evaluated * AEC * Subjects Regression Tests RQ1.a Augmented Regression Tests RQ1.b Beneficiary Donor Acceptance Tests Acceptance Tests RQ2 Manual Validation Subjects Type Size KLOC Reg. Tests Organ Test Suite Idct Donor Mytar Donor Cflow Donor Webserver Donor TuxCrypt Donor Pidgin Cflow SoX Case Study x264 Donor 63-5 VLC Minimal size: 0.4k; Max size: 422k; Average Donor: 16k; Average : 213k;