Regression Verification Using Impact Summaries
Regression verification techniques are used to prove equivalence of syntactically similar programs. Checking equivalence of large programs, however, can be computationally expensive. Existing regression verification techniques rely on abstraction and decomposition techniques to reduce the computational effort of checking equivalence of the entire program. These techniques are sound but not complete. In this work, we propose a novel approach to improve scalability of regression verification by classifying the program behaviors generated during symbolic execution as either impacted or unimpacted. Our technique uses a combination of static analysis and symbolic execution to generate summaries of impacted program behaviors. The impact summaries are then checked for equivalence using an o-the-shelf decision procedure. We prove that our approach is both sound and complete for sequential programs, with respect to the depth bound of symbolic execution. Our evaluation on a set of sequential C artifacts shows that reducing the size of the summaries can help reduce the cost of software equivalence checking. Various reduction, abstraction, and compositional techniques have been developed to help scale software verification techniques to industrial-sized systems. Although such techniques have greatly increased the size and complexity of systems that can be checked, analysis of large software systems remains costly. Regression analysis techniques, e.g., regression testing [16], regression model checking [22], and regression verification [19], restrict the scope of the analysis by leveraging the differences between program versions. These techniques are based on the idea that if code is checked early in development, then subsequent versions can be checked against a prior (checked) version, leveraging the results of the previous analysis to reduce analysis cost of the current version. Regression verification addresses the problem of proving equivalence of closely related program versions [19]. These techniques compare two programs with a large degree of syntactic similarity to prove that portions of one program version are equivalent to the other. Regression verification can be used for guaranteeing backward compatibility, and for showing behavioral equivalence in programs with syntactic differences, e.g., when a program is refactored to improve its performance, maintainability, or readability. Existing regression verification techniques leverage similarities between program versions by using abstraction and decomposition techniques to improve scalability of the analysis [10, 12, 19]. The abstractions and decomposition in the these techniques, e.g., summaries of unchanged code [12] or semantically equivalent methods [19], compute an over-approximation of the program behaviors. The equivalence checking results of these techniques are sound but not complete-they may characterize programs as not functionally equivalent when, in fact, they are equivalent. In this work we describe a novel approach that leverages the impact of the differences between two programs for scaling regression verification. We partition program behaviors of each version into (a) behaviors impacted by the changes and (b) behaviors not impacted (unimpacted) by the changes. Only the impacted program behaviors are used during equivalence checking. We then prove that checking equivalence of the impacted program behaviors is equivalent to checking equivalence of all program behaviors for a given depth bound. In this work we use symbolic execution to generate the program behaviors and leverage control- and data-dependence information to facilitate the partitioning of program behaviors. The impacted program behaviors are termed as impact summaries. The dependence analyses that facilitate the generation of the impact summaries, we believe, could be used in conjunction with other abstraction and decomposition based approaches, [10, 12], as a complementary reduction technique. An evaluation of our regression verification technique shows that our approach is capable of leveraging similarities between program versions to reduce the size of the queries and the time required to check for logical equivalence. The main contributions of this work are: - A regression verification technique to generate impact summaries that can be checked for functional equivalence using an off-the-shelf decision procedure. - A proof that our approach is sound and complete with respect to the depth bound of symbolic execution. - An implementation of our technique using the LLVMcompiler infrastructure, the klee Symbolic Virtual Machine [4], and a variety of Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) solvers, e.g., STP [7] and Z3 [6]. - An empirical evaluation on a set of C artifacts which shows that the use of impact summaries can reduce the cost of regression verification.