Autonomous program improvement typically involves automatically producing bug fixes and feature additions. Such program improvement can be accomplished by a combination of large language model (LLM) and program analysis capabilities, in the form of an LLM agent. Since program repair or program improvement typically requires a specification of intended behavior - specification inference can be useful for producing high quality program patches. In this work, we examine efficient and low-cost workflows for iterative specification inference within an LLM agent. Given a GitHub issue to be resolved in a software project, our goal is to conduct iterative code search accompanied by specification inference - thereby inferring intent from both the project structure and behavior. The intent thus captured is examined by a reviewer agent with the goal of vetting the patches as well as providing a measure of confidence in the vetted patches. Our approach SpecRover is built on the open-source LLM agent AutoCodeRover. In an evaluation on the full SWE-Bench consisting of 2294 GitHub issues, it shows more than 50% improvement in efficacy over AutoCodeRover. Compared to the open-source agents available, our work shows modest cost ($0.65 per issue) in resolving an average GitHub issue in SWE-Bench lite. The production of explanation by SpecRover allows for a better “signal” to be given to the developer, on when the suggested patches can be accepted with confidence. SpecRover also seeks to demonstrate the continued importance of specification inference in automated program repair, even as program repair technologies enter the LLM era.

This work introduces EffFix, a tool that applies a novel static analysis-driven automated program repair (APR) technique for fixing memory errors. APR tools typically rely on a given test-suite to guide the repair process. Apart from the need to provide test oracles, this reliance is also one of the main contributors to the over-fitting problem. Static analysis based APR techniques bypass these issues only to introduce new ones, such as soundness, scalability, and generalizability. This work demonstrates how we can overcome these challenges and achieve sound memory bug repair at scale by leveraging static analysis (specifically incorrectness separation logic (ISL)) to guide repair. This is the first repair approach to use ISL. Our key insight is that the abstract domain used by static analysis to detect the bugs also contains key information to derive correct patches. Our proposed approach learns what a desirable patch is by inspecting how close a patch is to fixing the bug based on the feedback from ISL based static analysis (specifically the Pulse analyzer), and turning this information into a distribution of probabilities over context free grammars. This approach to repair is generic in that its learning strategy allows for finding patches without relying on the commonly used patch templates. Furthermore, to achieve efficient program repair, instead of focusing on heuristics for reducing the search space of patches, we make repair scalable by creating classes of equivalent patches according to the effect they have on the symbolic heap. We then conduct candidate patch validation only once per patch equivalence class. This allows EffFix to efficiently discover quality repairs even in the presence of a large pool of patch candidates. Experimental evaluation of fixing real world memory errors in medium to large scale subjects like OpenSSL, Linux Kernel, swoole, shows the efficiency and effectiveness of EffFix— in terms of automatically producing repairs from large search spaces. In particular, EffFix has a fix ratio of 66% for memory leak bugs and 83% for Null Pointer Dereferences for the considered dataset.

Researchers have made significant progress in automating the software development process in the past decades. Automated techniques for issue summarization, bug reproduction, fault localization, and program repair have been built to ease the workload of developers. Recent progress in Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly impacted the development process, where developers can use LLM-based programming assistants to achieve automated coding. Nevertheless, software engineering involves the process of program improvement apart from coding, specifically to enable software maintenance (e.g. program repair to fix bugs) and software evolution (e.g. feature additions). In this paper, we propose an automated approach for solving Github issues to autonomously achieve program improvement. In our approach called AutoCodeRover, LLMs are combined with sophisticated code search capabilities, ultimately leading to a program modification or patch. In contrast to recent LLM agent approaches from AI researchers and practitioners, our outlook is more software engineering oriented. We work on a program representation (abstract syntax tree) as opposed to viewing a software project as a mere collection of files. Our code search exploits the program structure in the form of classes/methods to enhance LLM’s understanding of the issue’s root cause, and effectively retrieve a context via iterative search. The use of spectrum-based fault localization using tests, further sharpens the context, as long as a test-suite is available. Experiments on the recently proposed SWE-bench-lite (300 real-life Github issues) show increased efficacy in solving Github issues (19% on SWE-bench-lite), which is higher than the efficacy of the recently reported Swe-agent. Interestingly, our approach resolved 57 GitHub issues in about 4 minutes each (pass@1), whereas developers spent more than 2.68 days on average. In addition, AutoCodeRover achieved this efficacy with significantly lower cost (on average, $0.43 USD), compared to other baselines. We posit that our workflow enables autonomous software engineering, where, in future, auto-generated code from LLMs can be autonomously improved.

Memory errors, such as buffer overflows and use-after-free, remain the root cause of many security vulnerabilities in modern software. The use of closed source software further exacerbates the problem, as source-based memory error mitigation cannot be applied. While many memory error detection tools exist, most are based on a single error detection methodology with resulting known limitations, such as incomplete memory error detection (redzones) or false error detections (low-fat pointers). In this paper we introduce RedFat, a memory error hardening tool for stripped binaries that is fast, practical and scalable. The core idea behind RedFat is to combine complementary error detection methodologies---redzones and low-fat pointers---in order to detect more memory errors that can be detected by each individual methodology alone. However, complementary error detection also inherits the limitations of each approach, such as false error detections from low-fat pointers. To mitigate this, we introduce a profile-based analysis that automatically determines the strongest memory error protection possible without negative side effects.

Program vulnerabilities, even when detected and reported, are not fixed immediately. The time lag between the reporting and fixing of a vulnerability causes open-source software systems to suffer from significant exposure to possible attacks. In this paper, we propose a counter-example guided inductive inference procedure over program states to define likely invariants at possible fix locations. The likely invariants are constructed via mutation over states at the fix location, which turns out to be more effective for inductive property inference, as compared to the usual greybox fuzzing over program inputs. Once such likely invariants, which we call patch invariants, are identified, we can use them to construct patches via simple patch templates. Our work assumes that only one failing input (representing the exploit) is available to start the repair process. Experiments on the VulnLoc data-set of 39 vulnerabilities, which has been curated in previous works on vulnerability repair, show the effectiveness of our repair procedure. As compared to proposed approaches for vulnerability repair such as CPR or SenX which are based on concolic and symbolic execution respectively, we can repair significantly more vulnerabilities. Our results show the potential for program repair via inductive constraint inference, as opposed to generating repair constraints via deductive/symbolic analysis of a given test-suite.