Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.

Suman Saha 0002

dblp:96/893-2 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · conflict

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Systems, architecture and hardware · 3 · 1 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 2 first-authorSecurity and privacy · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Empirical software engineering · 49% Software testing · 35% Operating systems · 10%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing
fault analysis
0.322014
Faults in Linux 2.6 · ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 2014
Faults in linux: ten years later · ASPLOS 2011
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.322014
Faults in Linux 2.6 · ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 2014
Faults in linux: ten years later · ASPLOS 2011
Empirical software engineering › software fault analysis
bug study
0.112011
Faults in linux: ten years later · ASPLOS 2011
Operating systems › kernel
linux kernel
0.122014
Faults in Linux 2.6 · ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 2014
Faults in linux: ten years later · ASPLOS 2011
Program analysis
static analysis
0.112014
Faults in Linux 2.6 · ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 2014

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

static analysis · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 Faults in Linux 2.6
abstract
In August 2011, Linux entered its third decade. Ten years before, Chou et al. published a study of faults found by applying a static analyzer to Linux versions 1.0 through 2.4.1. A major result of their work was that the drivers directory contained up to 7 times more of certain kinds of faults than other directories. This result inspired numerous efforts on improving the reliability of driver code. Today, Linux is used in a wider range of environments, provides a wider range of services, and has adopted a new development and release model. What has been the impact of these changes on code quality? To answer this question, we have transported Chou et al.’s experiments to all versions of Linux 2.6; released between 2003 and 2011. We find that Linux has more than doubled in size during this period, but the number of faults per line of code has been decreasing. Moreover, the fault rate of drivers is now below that of other directories, such as arch. These results can guide further development and research efforts for the decade to come. To allow updating these results as Linux evolves, we define our experimental protocol and make our checkers available.
Nicolas Palix, Gaël Thomas 0001, Suman Saha 0002, Christophe Calvès, Gilles Muller, Julia Lawall
ACM Trans. Comput. Syst.3
2013 Hector: Detecting Resource-Release Omission Faults in error-handling code for systems software
abstract
Omitting resource-release operations in systems error handling code can lead to memory leaks, crashes, and deadlocks. Finding omission faults is challenging due to the difficulty of reproducing system errors, the diversity of system resources, and the lack of appropriate abstractions in the C language. To address these issues, numerous approaches have been proposed that globally scan a code base for common resource-release operations. Such macroscopic approaches are notorious for their many false positives, while also leaving many faults undetected. We propose a novel microscopic approach to finding resource-release omission faults in systems software. Rather than generalizing from the entire source code, our approach focuses on the error-handling code of each function. Using our tool, Hector, we have found over 370 faults in six systems software projects, including Linux, with a 23% false positive rate. Some of these faults allow an unprivileged malicious user to crash the entire system.
Suman Saha 0002, Jean-Pierre Lozi, Gaël Thomas 0001, Julia Lawall, Gilles Muller
DSN1
2011 Faults in linux: ten years later
abstract
In 2001, Chou et al. published a study of faults found by applying a static analyzer to Linux versions 1.0 through 2.4.1. A major result of their work was that the drivers directory contained up to 7 times more of certain kinds of faults than other directories. This result inspired a number of development and research efforts on improving the reliability of driver code. Today Linux is used in a much wider range of environments, provides a much wider range of services, and has adopted a new development and release model. What has been the impact of these changes on code quality? Are drivers still a major problem?
Nicolas Palix, Gaël Thomas 0001, Suman Saha 0002, Christophe Calvès, Julia Lawall, Gilles Muller
ASPLOS3
2011 An approach to improving the structure of error-handling code in the linux kernel
abstract
International audience
Suman Saha 0002, Julia Lawall, Gilles Muller
LCTES1
2011 Finding resource-release omission faults in Linux
abstract
The management of the releasing of allocated resources is a continual problem in ensuring the robustness of systems code. Missing resource-releasing operations lead to memory leaks and deadlocks. A number of approaches have been proposed to detect such problems, but they often have a high rate of false positives, or focus only on commonly used functions. In this paper we observe that resource-releasing operations are often found in error-handling code, and that the choice of resource-releasing operation may depend on the context in which it is to be used. We propose an approach to finding resource-release omission faults in C code that takes into account these issues. We use our approach to find over 100 faults in the drivers directory of Linux 2.6.34, with a false positive rate of only 16%, well below the 30% that has been found to be acceptable to developers.
Suman Saha 0002, Julia Lawall, Gilles Muller
PLOS@SOSP1