Revisiting Code Debloating with Ground Truth-based Evaluation

TL;DR

This paper critically evaluates application-level code debloating techniques using ground-truth-based metrics, revealing significant inaccuracies in existing tools and emphasizing the need for standardized assessment methodologies.

Contribution

It introduces a ground-truth evaluation paradigm for debloating, analyzing eight tools across multiple abstraction levels to uncover their true effectiveness and limitations.

Findings

Dynamic tools often remove excessive code, risking correctness.

Static tools tend to retain too much code due to coarse analysis.

Inaccurate debloating can cause functional issues and security vulnerabilities.

Abstract

Program debloating aims to remove unused code to reduce performance overhead, attack surfaces, and maintenance costs. Over time, debloating has evolved across multiple layers (container, library, and application), each building on the principles of application-level debloating. Despite its central role, application-level debloating continues to rely on imperfect proxies for measuring performance, such as test-case-driven evaluation for correctness, code size for runtime efficiency, and gadget count reduction for estimating security posture. While there is widespread skepticism about using such imperfect proxies, the community still lacks standardized methodologies or benchmarks to assess the true performance of application-level software debloating. This experience paper aims to address the gap. We revisit the foundations of application-level debloating through a ground-truth-based evaluation paradigm. Our analysis of eight state-of-the-art debloaters - Blade, Chisel, Cov, CovA, Lmcas, Trimmer, Occam, and Razor - uncovers insights previously unattainable through traditional evaluations. These tools collectively span the spectrum of source-to-source, IR-to-IR, and binary-to-binary transformation paradigms, characterizing a holistic reassessment across abstraction levels. Our analysis reveals that while dynamic analysis-based tools often remove up to 94% of code that should be retained, static analysis-based approaches exhibit the opposite behavior, showing high false retention rates due to coarse-grained dependency over-approximation. Additionally, static analyses may add code by introducing specialized variants of functions. False retentions and removals not only cause functional incorrectness but may also lead to systematic inconsistency, robustness failures, and exploitable vulnerabilities.