[cfe-dev] [analyzer] exploration strategies and paths

[Péter Szécsi via cfe-dev]

Hi George and Artem,

2018-01-30 1:44 GMT+01:00 Artem Dergachev via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>:

>
> On 29/01/2018 4:12 PM, George Karpenkov via cfe-dev wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I was investigating recently bug reports with very long analyzer paths
>> (more than a few hundred nodes).
>> In many of such cases the path is long for no good reason: namely, the
>> analyzer would go 3 times around the loop before
>> going further.
>> The issue is surprisingly common, and it was exacerbated with a recent
>> bump of analyzer thresholds.
>>
>
> Yeah, i guess everybody who used the analyzer has seen some of those nasty
> reports with iterating over loops 4 times. It's like why does it find the
> issue on the last iteration rather than on the first iteration, given that
> we use a depth-first strategy? So it's a great long-overdue thing to fix.
>
> George, do you have any non-internal before/after html reports to attach?
>
>
> The problem is reproduced on the following file:
>>
>> ```
>> extern int coin();
>>
>> int foo() {
>>      int *x = 0;
>>      while (coin()) {
>>          if (coin())
>>              return *x;
>>      }
>>      return 0;
>> }
>>
>> void bar() {
>>      while(coin())
>>          if (coin())
>>              foo();
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> While a shortest path to the error does not loop around, the current
>> version of the analyzer
>> will go around the loop three times before going further.
>> (and we are quite fortunate that the unrolling limit for loops is three,
>> otherwise it would keep going
>> until the unrolling limit is reached).
>>
>> Multiple issues were discovered during the investigation.
>>
>> 1. Analyzer queue does not have a concept of priority, and performs a
>> simple DFS by default.
>> Thus if the successor of the if-branch under the loop in “bar" containing
>> the desired destination is generated second,
>> it will never be evaluated until the loop exploration limit is exhausted.
>>
>> 2. The previous issue slows down the exploration, but is not enough to
>> get a pathological behavior of ultra-long paths.
>> The second problem is a combination of:
>> a) Block counter is not a part of a node's identity, and node A with a
>> small block counter can be merged into a node B with a large block counter,
>> and the resulting node will have a block counter associated with B.
>> b) The issue in (a) is triggered due to our heuristic to abandon the
>> function’s exploration and switch to conservative evaluation
>> if we are already *inside* the function and the block limit has been
>> reached.
>>
>> Issue (1) combined with (2-b) causes the problematic behavior: the issue
>> is discovered on the longest path first,
>> and by the time the shortest path gets to “bar”, the block limit is
>> already reached, and the switch to conservative evaluation is performed.
>>
>
> 2-a is not even required here.
>
> With our DFS exploration order, on every iteration of the while-loop
> within bar(), we'd take the false-branch of if() within bar() from the
> worklist, see that it goes back to loop, and end up with new true-branch
> and false-branch nodes of the next iteration on the top of the worklist.
> Then we pop the false-branch again, etc., until we run out of block count
> limit while having 4 true-branches in the worklist. Those would therefore
> evaluate in the opposite order, and the first time we enter foo() we'd be
> on the 4th iteration.
>
> This situation can happen regardless of in which order we evaluate
> if()-branches, by slightly modifying the example. So if the idea in the
> previous paragraph is unclear, it should still be obvious that sometimes
> we'd run into a function call on the longer path earlier than on a shorter
> path.
>
> Now, once we enter foo() and immediately find the bug, we also run out of
> block count limit within foo(). Recall that we are on the 4th iteration of
> the while-loop in bar(), and here is where the bug is found. Now, once
> evaluation of foo() is over, we record that we failed to fully inline it,
> so it's probably too complex, so let's evaluate it conservatively.
>
> It means that on 3th, 2nd, 1st iteration we won't be able to find the bug,
> because foo() is evaluated conservatively. So we're stuck with the long
> report forever.
>

I do not exactly see it why. If I'm not mistaken you described the
replay-without-inlining heuristics. However, I believe this information is
stored in the state which means that this only affects one path (in this
example the 4th iteration bug finding path). But whenever we simulate the
path of the 3rd/2nd/1st iteration where the if(coin()) is true, that is
another path. Maybe I just do not see something trivial os just
misunderstood something but could you explain me, why does it affect other
paths?


> Thus there are two mitigation strategies currently being evaluated:
>>
>> i) Remove the heuristic in (2-b)
>> ii) Use a priority queue to hold nodes which should be explored; prefer
>> nodes which give new source code coverage over others
>> (or alternatively prefer nodes with least depth of loop stack)
>>
>> Me and Artem have evaluated the option (i) and the results were
>> surprisingly good: some reports disappear, and slightly more reports
>> reappear.
>> The quality of the new reports seems to be slightly better, and I am
>> still trying to figure out exact reasons.
>>
>
> Yeah, i guess some explanation is necessary here. The skew of results is
> pretty huge, and it's surprising that the number of reports actually
> increases.
>
>
Just to make sure: Does the number of actually *different *reports
increases? In case of a missing uniquing location a checker could generate
a lot of "spam", so find and report the same bug on different paths. (And
turning off these heuristics could lead into that. Probably you already
checked this, but seems really suspicious.)

Another interesting stuff about (i) could be that how many times we reached
a max size ExplodedGraph (max number of steps) and how many more steps we
do because of turning of these heuristics? I feel like this change should
result higher analysis time but less coverage overall. However, I am not
sure how significant these changes are. So, if you manage to find more
valuable bugs then these changes worth it, I guess.


> Just to be clear, both replay-without-inlining and
> dont-inline-again-after-bailout heuristics were disabled in this test.
>
> I suspect merges resulting from heuristic (2-b) cause us to lose some
>> actually valid reports.
>>
>
> Because replay-without-inlining is disabled, there should not be many
> merges.
>
> Option (ii) has not been evaluated fully yet, but current experiments show
>> slightly more reports (5-10%), and a radical decline in report lengths
>> (e.g. from 400+ to <100 for largest reports)
>>
>> Are there any thoughts on the matter?
>>
>> Personally I think we should do both (i) and (ii), even if they would
>> shake up the results.
>> - The original idea for heuristics (2-b) was to be able to produce a
>> report even if we are out of budget, but since it actually results in less
>> reports,
>> I think the data does not validate the approach.
>>
>> - Option (ii) is AFAIK how most similar engines work, and should get us
>> much larger coverage (and shorter paths) for the same node budget,
>> even at the cost of log(N) overhead of the priority queue. Moreover, not
>> having the priority queue will bite us later if we ever decide to further
>> increase the analyzer budget or to increase the unroll limit.
>>
>
> In the example above, (ii) means evaluating the first true-branch of the
> if() in bar() before the second false-branch of the if() in bar(), simply
> because it's *on an earlier loop iteration*. This, indeed, sounds like the
> right thing to do, like, logically, hopefully we'd be able to confirm this
> with a more careful evaluation.


Option (ii) is something I personally really support and would like to see
implemented in the analyzer. I was already thinking on this change earlier
but did not seem easy to come up with a reliable heuristic for that. The
aim is clear and great but how would you do it? Would you rate the
possibilities based on the number of visits of the possible next analyzed
blocks?


Thanks,
Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20180130/9c72e7be/attachment.html>