Engineering a Formally Verified Automated Bug Finder
Arthur Correnson, Dominic Steinhöfel
Abstract
Symbolic execution is a program analysis technique executing programs with symbolic instead of concrete inputs. This principle allows for exploring many program paths at once. Despite its wide adoption—in particular for program testing–little effort was dedicated to studying the semantic foundations of symbolic execution. Without these foundations, critical questions regarding the correctness of symbolic executors cannot be satisfyingly answered: Can a reported bug be reproduced, or is it a false positive (soundness)? Can we be sure to find all bugs if we let the testing tool run long enough (completeness)? This paper presents a systematic approach for engineering provably sound and complete symbolic execution-based bug finders by relating a programming language’s operational semantics with a symbolic semantics. In contrast to prior work on symbolic execution semantics, we address the correctness of critical implementation details of symbolic bug finders, including the search strategy and the role of constraint solvers to prune the search space. We showcase our approach by implementing WiSE, a prototype of a verified bug finder for an imperative language, in the Coq proof assistant and proving it sound and complete. We demonstrate that the design principles of WiSE survive outside the ecosystem of interactive proof assistants by (1) automatically extracting an OCaml implementation and (2) transforming WiSE to PyWiSE, a functionally equivalent Python version.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext fd439aba-7c2b-4636-b104-ef5f580fc3beCited by top-tier papers2
- Finding ∀∃ Hyperbugs using Symbolic ExecutionArthur Correnson, Tobias Nießen, Bernd Finkbeiner, Georg WeissenbacherOOPSLA 2024 · 7 citations
- Foundational Multi-Modal Program VerifiersVladimir Gladshtein, George Pîrlea, Qiyuan Zhao, Vitaly Kurin et al.POPL 2026 · 4 citations
Builds on3
- Coq Coq correct! verification of type checking and erasure for Coq, in CoqMatthieu Sozeau, Simon Boulier, Yannick Forster, Nicolas Tabareau et al.POPL 2020 · 67 citations
- Estimating residual risk in greybox fuzzingMarcel Böhme, Danushka Liyanage, Valentin WüstholzFSE 2021 · 27 citations
- Reachable Coverage: Estimating Saturation in FuzzingDanushka Liyanage, Marcel Böhme, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Stephan LippICSE 2023 · 14 citations
Related papers
- Compatible Branch Coverage Driven Symbolic Execution for Efficient Bug FindingQiuping Yi, Yifan Yu, Guowei YangPLDI 2024 · 10 citations
- Not All Bugs Are Created Equal, But Robust Reachability Can Tell the DifferenceGuillaume Girol, Benjamin Farinier, Sébastien BardinCAV 2021 · 15 citations
- Gillian, part i: a multi-language platform for symbolic executionJosé Fragoso Santos, Petar Maksimovic, Sacha-Élie Ayoun, Philippa GardnerPLDI 2020 · 38 citations
- SymBisect: Accurate Bisection for Fuzzer-Exposed VulnerabilitiesZheng Zhang, Yu Hao, Weiteng Chen, Xiaochen Zou et al.USENIX Security 2024 · 7 citations
- Concrete Constraint Guided Symbolic ExecutionYue Sun, Guowei Yang, Shichao Lv, Zhi Li et al.ICSE 2024 · 3 citations
