Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userSimplifying Contract-Violating Traces
86
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
EPTCS
Publication date
2012
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Christian Colombo
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Contract conformance is hard to determine statically, prior to the deployment of large pieces of software. A scalable alternative is to monitor for contract violations post-deployment: once a violation is detected, the trace characterising the offending execution is analysed to pinpoint the source of the offence. A major drawback with this technique is that, often, contract violations take time to surface, resulting in long traces that are hard to analyse. This paper proposes a methodology together with an accompanying tool for simplifying traces and assisting contract-violation debugging.
rate research
Read More
Smart contracts are automated or self-enforcing contracts that can be used to exchange assets without having to place trust in third parties. Many commercial transactions use smart contracts due to their potential benefits in terms of secure peer-to-peer transactions independent of external parties. Experience shows that many commonly used smart contracts are vulnerable to serious malicious attacks which may enable attackers to steal valuable assets of involving parties. There is therefore a need to apply analysis and automated repair techniques to detect and repair bugs in smart contracts before being deployed. In this work, we present the first general-purpose automated smart contract repair approach that is also gas-aware. Our repair method is search-based and searches among mutations of the buggy contract. Our method also considers the gas usage of the candidate patches by leveraging our novel notion of gas dominance relationship. We have made our smart contract repair tool SCRepair available open-source, for investigation by the wider community.
Modern software projects include automated tests written to check the programs functionality. The set of functions invoked by a test is called the trace of the test, and the action of obtaining a trace is called tracing. There are many tracing tools since traces are useful for a variety of software engineering tasks such as test generation, fault localization, and test execution planning. A major drawback in using test traces is that obtaining them, i.e., tracing, can be costly in terms of computational resources and runtime. Prior work attempted to address this in various ways, e.g., by selectively tracing only some of the software components or compressing the trace on-the-fly. However, all these approaches still require building the project and executing the test in order to get its (partial, possibly compressed) trace. This is still very costly in many cases. In this work, we propose a method to predict the trace of each test without executing it, based only on static properties of the test and the tested program, as well as past experience on different tests. This prediction is done by applying supervised learning to learn the relation between various static features of test and function and the likelihood that one will include the other in its trace. Then, we show how to use the predicted traces in a recent automated troubleshooting paradigm called Learn Diagnose and plan (LDP), instead of the actual, costly-to-obtain, test traces. In a preliminary evaluation on real-world open-source projects, we observe that our prediction quality is reasonable. In addition, using our trace predictions in LDP yields almost the same results comparing to when using real traces, while requiring less overhead.
344 -
Massimo Bartoletti
, Roberto Zunino (Dipartimento din Ingegneria e Scienza dellInformazione
2010
We investigate how contracts can be used to regulate the interaction between processes. To do that, we study a variant of the concurrent constraints calculus presented in [1], featuring primitives for multi-party synchronization via contracts. We proceed in two directions. First, we exploit our primitives to model some contract-based interactions. Then, we discuss how several models for concurrency can be expressed through our primitives. In particular, we encode the pi-calculus and graph rewriting.
To accelerate software development, developers frequently search and reuse existing code snippets from a large-scale codebase, e.g., GitHub. Over the years, researchers proposed many information retrieval (IR) based models for code search, which match keywords in query with code text. But they fail to connect the semantic gap between query and code. To conquer this challenge, Gu et al. proposed a deep-learning-based model named DeepCS. It jointly embeds method code and natural language description into a shared vector space, where methods related to a natural language query are retrieved according to their vector similarities. However, DeepCS working process is complicated and time-consuming. To overcome this issue, we proposed a simplified model CodeMatcher that leverages the IR technique but maintains many features in DeepCS. Generally, CodeMatcher combines query keywords with the original order, performs a fuzzy search on name and body strings of methods, and returned the best-matched methods with the longer sequence of used keywords. We verified its effectiveness on a large-scale codebase with about 41k repositories. Experimental results showed the simplified model CodeMatcher outperforms DeepCS by 97% in terms of MRR (a widely used accuracy measure for code search), and it is over 66 times faster than DeepCS. Besides, comparing with the state-of-the-art IR-based model CodeHow, CodeMatcher also improves the MRR by 73%. We also observed that: fusing the advantages of IR-based and deep-learning-based models is promising because they compensate with each other by nature; improving the quality of method naming helps code search, since method name plays an important role in connecting query and code.
Smart contracts are programs running on a blockchain. They are immutable to change, and hence can not be patched for bugs once deployed. Thus it is critical to ensure they are bug-free and well-designed before deployment. A Contract defect is an error, flaw or fault in a smart contract that causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways. The detection of contract defects is a method to avoid potential bugs and improve the design of existing code. Since smart contracts contain numerous distinctive features, such as the gas system. decentralized, it is important to find smart contract specified defects. To fill this gap, we collected smart-contract-related posts from Ethereum StackExchange, as well as real-world smart contracts. We manually analyzed these posts and contracts; using them to define 20 kinds of contract defects. We categorized them into indicating potential security, availability, performance, maintainability and reusability problems. To validate if practitioners consider these contract as harmful, we created an online survey and received 138 responses from 32 different countries. Feedback showed these contract defects are harmful and removing them would improve the quality and robustness of smart contracts. We manually identified our defined contract defects in 587 real world smart contract and publicly released our dataset. Finally, we summarized 5 impacts caused by contract defects. These help developers better understand the symptoms of the defects and removal priority.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
