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.

João Carlos Menezes Carreira

dblp:33/11187 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 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
1 paper
Software testing · 67% Program analysis · 33%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Storage systems · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing › test input generation
concolic testing
0.112012
Scalable testing of file system checkers · EuroSys 2012
Program analysis
symbolic execution
0.112012
Scalable testing of file system checkers · EuroSys 2012
Storage systems
file systems
0.012012
Scalable testing of file system checkers · EuroSys 2012
Storage systems › file systems
file system checker
0.012012
Scalable testing of file system checkers · EuroSys 2012

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

symbolic execution · 0.3corruption model · 0.3concrete execution · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2012 Scalable testing of file system checkers
abstract
File system checkers (like e2fsck) are critical, complex, and hard to develop, and developers today rely on hand-written tests to exercise this intricate code. Test suites for file system checkers take a lot of effort to develop and require careful reasoning to cover a sufficiently comprehensive set of inputs and recovery mechanisms. We present a tool and methodology for testing file system checkers that reduces the need for a specification of the recovery process and the development of a test suite. Our methodology splits the correctness of the checker into two objectives: consistency and completeness of recovery. For each objective, we leverage either the file system checker code itself or a comparison among the outputs of multiple checkers to extract an implicit specification of correct behavior. Our methodology is embodied in a testing tool called SWIFT, which uses a mix of symbolic and concrete execution; it introduces two new techniques: a specific concretization strategy and a corruption model that leverages test suites of file system checkers. We used SWIFT to test the file system checkers of ext2, ext3, ext4, ReiserFS, and Minix; we found bugs in all checkers, including cases leading to data loss. Additionally, we automatically generated test suites achieving code coverage on par with manually constructed test suites shipped with the checkers.
João Carlos Menezes Carreira, Rodrigo Rodrigues 0001, George Candea, Rupak Majumdar
EuroSys1