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.
? Tutorial for this page

Seth Hallem

dblp:97/6437 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 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
3 papers
Program analysis · 77% Operating systems · 18% Empirical software engineering · 4%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program analysis
static analysis
0.122001
An Empirical Study of Operating System Errors · SOSP 2001
Checking System Rules Using System-Specific, Programmer-Written Compiler Extensions · OSDI 2000
Program analysis › static analysis
bug detection
0.012002
A System and Language for Building System-Specific, Static Analyses · PLDI 2002
Program analysis › static analysis › interprocedural analysis
context-sensitive analysis
0.012002
A System and Language for Building System-Specific, Static Analyses · PLDI 2002
Program analysis › static analysis
interprocedural analysis
0.012002
A System and Language for Building System-Specific, Static Analyses · PLDI 2002
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.012001
An Empirical Study of Operating System Errors · SOSP 2001

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

context-sensitive interprocedural analysis · 0.0static compiler analysis · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2002 How to write system-specific, static checkers in metal
abstract
This paper gives an overview of the metal language, which we have designed to make it easy to construct system-specific, static analyses. We call these analyses extensions because they act as the input to a generic analysis engine that runs the static analysis over a given source base. We also interchangeably refer to them as checkers because they check that a user-specified property holds in the source base and report any violations of that property. Note that checkers may not detect all violations of a specified property. Their goal is to find as many violations as possible with a minimum of false positives
Benjamin Chelf, Dawson R. Engler, Seth Hallem
PASTE3
2002 A System and Language for Building System-Specific, Static Analyses
abstract
This paper presents a novel approach to bug-finding analysis and an implementation of that approach. Our goal is to find as many serious bugs as possible. To do so, we designed a flexible, easy-to-use extension language for specifying analyses and an efficent algorithm for executing these extensions. The language, metal, allows the users of our system to specify a broad class of analyses in terms that resemble the intuitive description of the rules that they check. The system, xgcc, executes these analyses efficiently using a context-sensitive, interprocedural analysis. Our prior work has shown that the approach described in this paper is effective: it has successfully found thousands of bugs in real systems code. This paper describes the underlying system used to achieve these results. We believe that our system is an effective framework for deploying new bug-finding analyses quickly and easily.
Seth Hallem, Benjamin Chelf, Yichen Xie 0001, Dawson R. Engler
PLDI1
2001 An Empirical Study of Operating System Errors
abstract
We present a study of operating system errors found by automatic, static, compiler analysis applied to the Linux and OpenBSD kernels. Our approach differs from previous studies that consider errors found by manual inspection of logs, testing, and surveys because static analysis is applied uniformly to the entire kernel source, though our approach necessarily considers a less comprehensive variety of errors than previous studies. In addition, automation allows us to track errors over multiple versions of the kernel source to estimate how long errors remain in the system before they are fixed.We found that device drivers have error rates up to three to seven times higher than the rest of the kernel. We found that the largest quartile of functions have error rates two to six times higher than the smallest quartile. We found that the newest quartile of files have error rates up to twice that of the oldest quartile, which provides evidence that code "hardens" over time. Finally, we found that bugs remain in the Linux kernel an average of 1.8 years before being fixed.
Andy Chou, Benjamin Chelf, Seth Hallem, Dawson R. Engler
SOSP4
2000 Checking System Rules Using System-Specific, Programmer-Written Compiler Extensions
Dawson R. Engler, Benjamin Chelf, Andy Chou, Seth Hallem
OSDI4