-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 98
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Rust's coverage instrumentation assumes function calls never panic #3441
Labels
[C] Bug
This is a bug. Something isn't working.
[F] Soundness
Kani failed to detect an issue
Z-UnstableFeature
Issues that only occur if a unstable feature is enabled
Comments
adpaco-aws
added
[C] Bug
This is a bug. Something isn't working.
[F] Soundness
Kani failed to detect an issue
Z-UnstableFeature
Issues that only occur if a unstable feature is enabled
labels
Aug 15, 2024
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 27, 2024
This PR replaces the line-based coverage instrumentation we introduced in #2609 with the standard source-based code coverage instrumentation performed by the Rust compiler. As a result, we now insert code coverage checks in the `StatementKind::Coverage(..)` statements produced by the Rust compiler during compilation. These checks include coverage-relevant information[^note-internal] such as the coverage counter/expression they represent [^note-instrument]. Both the coverage metadata (`kanimap`) and coverage results (`kaniraw`) are saved into files after the verification stage. Unfortunately, we currently have a chicken-egg problem with this PR and #3121, where we introduce a tool named `kani-cov` to postprocess coverage results. As explained in #3143, `kani-cov` is expected to be an alias for the `cov` subcommand and provide most of the postprocessing features for coverage-related purposes. But, the tool will likely be introduced after this change. Therefore, we propose to temporarily print a list of the regions in each function with their associated coverage status (i.e., `COVERED` or `UNCOVERED`). ### Source-based code coverage: An example The main advantage of source-based coverage results is their precision with respect to the source code. The [Source-based Code Coverage](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/SourceBasedCodeCoverage.html) documentation explains more details about the LLVM coverage workflow and its different options. For example, let's take this Rust code: ```rust 1 fn _other_function() { 2 println!("Hello, world!"); 3 } 4 5 fn test_cov(val: u32) -> bool { 6 if val < 3 || val == 42 { 7 true 8 } else { 9 false 10 } 11 } 12 13 #[cfg_attr(kani, kani::proof)] 14 fn main() { 15 let test1 = test_cov(1); 16 let test2 = test_cov(2); 17 assert!(test1); 18 assert!(test2); 19 } ``` Compiling and running the program with `rustc` and the `-C instrument-coverage` flag, and using the LLVM tools can get us the following coverage result: ![Image](https://github.com/model-checking/kani/assets/73246657/9070e390-6e0b-4add-828d-d9f9caacad07) In contrast, the `cargo kani --coverage -Zsource-coverage` command currently generates: ``` src/main.rs (main) * 14:1 - 19:2 COVERED src/main.rs (test_cov) * 5:1 - 6:15 COVERED * 6:19 - 6:28 UNCOVERED * 7:9 - 7:13 COVERED * 9:9 - 9:14 UNCOVERED * 11:1 - 11:2 COVERED ``` which is a verification-based coverage result almost equivalent to the runtime coverage results. ### Benchmarking We have evaluated the performance impact of the instrumentation using the `kani-perf.sh` suite (14 benchmarks). For each test, we compare the average time to run standard verification against the average time to run verification with the source-based code coverage feature enabled[^note-line-evaluation]. The evaluation has been performed on an EC2 `m5a.4xlarge` instance running Ubuntu 22.04. The experimental data has been obtained by running the `kani-perf.sh` script 10 times for each version (`only verification` and `verification + coverage`), computing the average and standard deviation. We've split this data into `small` (tests taking 60s or less) and `large` (tests taking more than 60s) and drawn the two graphs below. #### Performance comparison - `small` benchmarks ![performance_comparison_small](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/679cf412-0193-4b0c-a78c-2d0fb702706f) #### Performance comparison - `large` benchmarks ![performance_comparison_large](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4bb5a895-7f57-49e0-86b5-5fea67fad939) #### Comments on performance Looking at the small tests, the performance impact seems negligible in such cases. The difference is more noticeable in the large tests, where the time to run verification and coverage can take 2x or even more. It wouldn't be surprising that, as programs become larger, the complexity of the coverage checking grows exponentially as well. However, since most verification jobs don't take longer than 30min (1800s), it's OK to say that coverage checking represents a 100-200% slowdown in the worst case w.r.t. standard verification. It's also worth noting a few other things: * The standard deviation remains similar in most cases, meaning that the coverage feature doesn't have an impact on their stability. * We haven't tried any SAT solvers other than the ones used by default for each benchmark. It's possible that other solvers perform better/worse with the coverage feature enabled. ### Call-outs * The soundness issue documented in #3441. * The issue with saving coverage mappings for non-reachable functions documented in #3445. * I've modified the test cases in `tests/coverage/` to test this feature. Since this technique is simpler, we don't need that many test cases. However, it's possible I've left some test cases which don't contribute much. Please let me know if you want to add/remove a test case. [^note-internal]: The coverage mappings can't be accessed through the StableMIR interface so we retrieve them through the internal API. [^note-instrument]: The instrumentation replaces certain counters with expressions based on other counters when possible to avoid a part of the runtime overhead. More details can be found [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/blob/master/src/llvm-coverage-instrumentation.md#mir-pass-instrumentcoverage). Unfortunately, we can't avoid instrumenting expressions at the moment. [^note-line-evaluation]: We have not compared performance against the line-based code coverage feature because it doesn't seem worth it. The line-based coverage feature is guaranteed to include more coverage checks than the source-based one for any function. In addition, source-based results are more precise than line-based ones. So this change represents both a quantitative and qualitative improvement. By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 and MIT licenses.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
[C] Bug
This is a bug. Something isn't working.
[F] Soundness
Kani failed to detect an issue
Z-UnstableFeature
Issues that only occur if a unstable feature is enabled
The integration with the Rust coverage instrumentation being introduced in #3119 seems to work well for all cases except for function calls causing panics or other control-flow divergences. Take the following example:
The instrumentation introduced in #3119 reports a single region for the whole function, which is considered to be covered:
This is very relevant when using certain Kani APIs like
kani::assume(...)
because the code following it will be reported as being within the same (covered) region when actually that part might not being covered. For example, let's take the program:The results we currently obtain are:
which are incorrect. Instead, there should be:
kani::assume(..)
statement.assert!(x == 2)
statement which is actually unreachable during verification.Note that this is an issue with the Rust coverage instrumentation, which assumes that function calls never panic. This assumption does result in a much more efficient instrumentation. According to this Zulip thread, the Rust team will attempt to lift this assumption and potentially provide options to disable the optimization. The issue tracking this work is mainly rust-lang/rust#78544.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: