Program Repair by Fuzzing over Patch and Input Space

TL;DR

This paper introduces a novel approach to automated program repair by applying fuzzing techniques to explore the patch space, combined with input fuzzing, to efficiently find high-quality bug fixes without recompilation.

Contribution

It proposes a patch-space fuzzing method, a compilation-free patch validation technique, and a combined fuzzing strategy to improve automated program repair effectiveness.

Findings

Patch-space fuzzing effectively explores fix candidates.

Compilation-free validation maintains high throughput.

Combined fuzzing improves patch quality and search efficiency.

Abstract

Fuzz testing (fuzzing) is a well-known method for exposing bugs/vulnerabilities in software systems. Popular fuzzers, such as AFL, use a biased random search over the domain of program inputs, where 100s or 1000s of inputs (test cases) are executed per second in order to expose bugs. If a bug is discovered, it can either be fixed manually by the developer or fixed automatically using an Automated Program Repair (APR) tool. Like fuzzing, many existing APR tools are search-based, but over the domain of patches rather than inputs. In this paper, we propose search-based program repair as patch-level fuzzing. The basic idea is to adapt a fuzzer (AFL) to fuzz over the patch space rather than the input space. Thus we use a patch-space fuzzer to explore a patch space, while using a traditional input level fuzzer to rule out patch candidates and help in patch selection. To improve the throughput, we propose a compilation-free patch validation methodology, where we execute the original (unpatched) program natively, then selectively interpret only the specific patched statements and expressions. Since this avoids (re)compilation, we show that compilation-free patch validation can achieve a similar throughput as input-level fuzzing (100s or 1000s of execs/sec). We show that patch-level fuzzing and input-level fuzzing can be combined, for a co-exploration of both spaces in order to find better quality patches. Such a collaboration between input-level fuzzing and patch-level fuzzing is then employed to search over candidate fix locations, as well as patch candidates in each fix location.