arXiv subjects

Mahmoud Alfadel

Publications and source records attributed to Mahmoud Alfadel.

12 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

SNIPTEST: Fuzzing Multi-Level Code Slices for Validating Vulnerabilities

Modern software systems are increasingly complex, and static analysis tools are commonly used to identify potentially vulnerable code by issuing warnings. However, these warnings often require manual inspection to confirm whether the reported issues are real, making the process time-consuming and error-prone. Directed fuzzing has emerged as a powerful automated technique to validate the warnings. However, applying it to the entire project in response to each warning is computationally infeasible, often requiring days of execution to achieve only incremental improvements in code coverage. We present SNIPTEST, an execution-based warning triage framework that generates and fuzzes compiled code slices centered around static-analysis warnings. Rather than proving exploitability in the full program, SNIPTEST provides evidence about how a warning behaves under progressively expanded sliced execution contexts. It employs a layer-by-layer slicing strategy, incrementally expanding context around the target location to validate potential vulnerabilities with increasing precision. We evaluate SNIPTEST on a benchmark of 97 true vulnerabilities and 97 false alarms across three real-world projects. SNIPTEST produces Possible True Positive evidence for 53 of 97 confirmed vulnerabilities (54.6%) by triggering the corresponding bug oracle consistently across all three analyzed slice levels, while the remaining cases are unreachable. Particularly, in 40.2% of these cases, it exploits the vulnerability along the observed execution path, matching the top three stack frames. On the 97 confirmed false alarms, SNIPTEST produces Possible False Positive evidence for 54 cases (55.6%) by reaching the warning without triggering the bug oracle, but misclassifies 28 cases (28.8%),and the remaining cases are unreached. Finally, we demonstrate the practical relevance of SNIPTEST by identifying CVE-2025-11964.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

COMMITGUARD: Differential Slice Fuzzing for Commit-Induced Bug Detection

Modern software systems evolve through frequent commits that implement bug fixes, features, and security patches. Although code review and testing are widely used to check these changes, they often provide limited assurance for memory-safety issues. Code reviewers may miss subtle boundary, lifetime, or initialization errors, while existing tests may not exercise the specific paths affected by a commit. Fuzzing is effective at exposing such bugs, but applying it to every commit remains impractical because whole-program fuzzing is expensive, requires suitable harnesses, and may still fail to reach the code changed by a commit. In this paper, we introduce COMMITGUARD, a commit-aware differential slice-based fuzzing approach for verifying code changes. The key insight behind COMMITGUARD is that the pre-commit version of a modified function can serve as a behavioral baseline for interpreting bugs found after the commit. For each target commit, COMMITGUARD identifies modified functions, extracts compilable code slices from both the pre-commit and post-commit versions, and fuzzes the paired slices independently. It then compares sanitizer reports across the two versions and reports bugs that emerge only in the post-commit version as candidate commit-induced bugs. We evaluate COMMITGUARD on 300 commits from openSSL, libpcap and leptonica. Slice fuzzing initially produces 518 sanitizer reports across these commits. By comparing pre-commit and post-commit slices, COMMITGUARD narrows this large output to 7 candidate commit-induced bug reports that require manual triage. Manual validation confirms 5 of these reports as real bugs that were fixed by developers of the examined projects after we reported them, while only 2 reports were classified as false positives. COMMITGUARD analyzes a commit in 32.4 minutes on average and achieves 75.36% average coverage of modified functions.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Toward Linking Declined Proposals and Source Code: An Exploratory Study on the Go Repository

Traceability links are key information sources for software developers, connecting software artifacts. Such links play an important role, particularly between contribution artifacts and their corresponding source code. Through these links, developers can trace the discussions in contributions and uncover design rationales, constraints, and security concerns. Previous studies have mainly examined accepted contributions, while those declined after discussion have been overlooked. Declined-contribution discussions capture valuable design rationale and implicit decision criteria, revealing why features are accepted or rejected. Our prior work also shows developers often revisit and resubmit declined contributions, making traceability to them useful. In this study, we present the first attempt to establish traceability links between declined contributions and related source code. We propose a linking approach and conduct an empirical analysis of the generated links to discuss the factors that affect link generation. As our dataset, we use proposals from the official Go repository, which are GitHub issues used to propose new features or language changes. To link declined proposals to source code, we design an LLM-driven pipeline. Our results show that the pipeline selected the correct granularity for each declined proposal with an accuracy of 0.836, and generated correct links at that granularity with a mean precision of 0.643. To clarify the challenges of linking declined proposals, we conduct a failure analysis of instances where the pipeline failed to generate links. In these cases, discussions were often redundant and lacked concrete information (e.g., details on how the feature should be implemented).

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Who Writes the Docs in SE 3.0? Agent vs. Human Documentation Pull Requests

As software engineering moves toward SE3.0, AI agents are increasingly used to carry out development tasks and contribute changes to software projects. It is therefore important to understand the extent of these contributions and how human developers review and intervene, since these factors shape the risks of delegating work to AI agents. While recent studies have examined how AI agents support software development tasks (e.g., code generation, issue resolution, and PR automation), their role in documentation tasks remains underexplored-even though documentation is widely consumed and shapes how developers understand and use software. Using the AIDev, we analyze 1,997 documentation-related pull requests (PRs) authored by AI agents and human developers, where documentation PRs are those that create or modify project documentation artifacts. We find that AI agents submit substantially more documentation-related PRs than humans in the studied repositories. We further observe that agent-authored documentation edits are typically integrated with little follow-up modification from humans, raising concerns about review practices and the reliability of agent-generated documentation. Overall, while AI agents already contribute substantially to documentation workflows, our results suggest concerns for emerging challenges for documentation quality assurance and human-AI collaboration in SE3.0.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

The Cost of Downgrading Build Systems: A Case Study of Kubernetes

Since developers invoke the build system frequently, its performance can impact productivity. Modern artifact-based build tools accelerate builds, yet prior work shows that teams may abandon them for alternatives that are easier to maintain. While prior work shows why downgrades are performed, the implications of downgrades remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we describe a case study of the Kubernetes project, focusing on its downgrade from an artifact-based build tool (Bazel) to a language-specific solution (Go Build). We reproduce and analyze the full and incremental builds of change sets during the downgrade period. On the one hand, we find that Bazel builds are faster than Go Build, completing full builds in 23.06-38.66 up to 75.19 impose a larger memory footprint than Go Build of 81.42-351.07 respectively. Bazel builds also impose a greater CPU load at parallelism settings above eight for full builds and above one for incremental builds. We estimate that downgrading from Bazel can increase CI resource costs by up to 76 explore whether our observations generalize by replicating our Kubernetes study on four other projects that also downgraded from Bazel to older build tools. We observe that while build time penalties decrease, Bazel consistently consumes more memory. We conclude that abandoning artifact-based build tools, despite perceived maintainability benefits, tends to incur considerable performance costs for large projects. Our observations may help stakeholders to balance trade-offs in build tool adoption

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

An empirical study on declined proposals: why are these proposals declined?

Design-level decisions in open-source software (OSS) projects are often made through structured mechanisms such as proposals, which require substantial community discussion and review. Despite their importance, the proposal process is resource-intensive and often leads to contributor frustration, especially when proposals are declined without clear feedback. Yet, the reasons behind proposal rejection remain poorly understood, limiting opportunities to streamline the process or guide contributors effectively. This study investigates the characteristics and outcomes of proposals in the Go programming language to understand why proposals are declined and how such outcomes might be anticipated. We conduct a mixed-method empirical study on 1,091 proposals submitted to the Go project. We quantify proposal outcomes, build a taxonomy of decline reasons, and evaluate large language models (LLMs) for predicting these outcomes. We find that proposals are more often declined than accepted, and resolution typically takes over a month. Only 14.7% of declined proposals are ever resubmitted. Through qualitative coding, we identify nine key reasons for proposal decline, such as duplication, limited use cases, or violations of project principles. This taxonomy can help contributors address issues in advance, e.g., checking for existing alternatives can reduce redundancy. We also demonstrate that GPT-based models can predict decline decisions early in the discussion (F1 score = 0.71 with partial comments), offering a practical tool for prioritizing review effort. Our findings reveal inefficiencies in the proposal process and highlight actionable opportunities for improving both contributor experience and reviewer workload by enabling early triage and guiding contributors to strengthen their proposals using a structured understanding of past decline reasons.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

AddressWatcher: Sanitizer-Based Localization of Memory Leak Fixes

Memory leak bugs are a major problem in C/C++ programs. They occur when memory objects are not deallocated.Developers need to manually deallocate these objects to prevent memory leaks. As such, several techniques have been proposed to automatically fix memory leaks. Although proposed approaches have merit in automatically fixing memory leaks, they present limitations. Static-based approaches attempt to trace the complete semantics of memory object across all paths. However, they have scalability-related challenges when the target program has a large number of leaked paths. On the other hand, dynamic approaches can spell out precise semantics of memory object only on a single execution path (not considering multiple execution paths). In this paper, we complement prior approaches by designing and implementing a novel framework named AddressWatcher. AddressWatcher allows the semantics of a memory object to be tracked on multiple execution paths as a dynamic approach. Addresswatcher accomplishes this by using a leak database that is designed to allow storing and comparing different execution paths of a leak over several test cases. We conduct an evaluation of AddressWatcher on a benchmark of five open-source packages, namely binutils, openssh, tmux, openssl and git. In 23 out of the 50 examined memory leak bugs, AddressWatcher correctly points to a free location to fix memory leaks. Moreover, we submitted 25 new pull requests (PRs) to 12 popular open-source project repositories. These PRs targeted the resolution of memory leaks within these repositories. Among these, 21 PRs were merged, addressing 5 open GitHub issues. In fact, a critical fix prompted a new version release for the calc repository, a program used to find large primes. Furthermore, our contributions through these PRs sparked intense discussions and appreciation in various repositories such as coturn, h2o, and radare2.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

BLAZE: Cross-Language and Cross-Project Bug Localization via Dynamic Chunking and Hard Example Learning

Software bugs require developers to exert significant effort to identify and resolve them, often consuming about one-third of their time. Bug localization, the process of pinpointing the exact source code files that need modification, is crucial in reducing this effort. Existing bug localization tools, typically reliant on deep learning techniques, face limitations in cross-project applicability and effectiveness in multi-language environments. Recent advancements with Large Language Models (LLMs) offer detailed representations for bug localization. However, they encounter challenges with limited context windows and mapping accuracy. To address these issues, we propose BLAZE, an approach that employs dynamic chunking and hard example learning. First, BLAZE dynamically segments source code to minimize continuity loss. Then, BLAZE fine-tunes a GPT-based model using challenging bug cases, in order to enhance cross-project and cross-language bug localization. To support the capability of BLAZE, we create the BEETLEBOX dataset, which comprises 26,321 bugs from 29 large and thriving open-source projects across five different programming languages (Java, C++, Python, Go, and JavaScript). Our evaluations of BLAZE on three benchmark datasets BEETLEBOX, SWE-Bench, and Ye et al. demonstrate substantial improvements compared to six state-of-the-art baselines. Specifically, BLAZE achieves up to an increase of 120% in Top 1 accuracy, 144% in Mean Average Precision (MAP), and 100% in Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR). An extensive ablation study confirms the contributions of our pipeline components to the overall performance enhancement.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Revisiting the Performance of Deep Learning-Based Vulnerability Detection on Realistic Datasets

The impact of software vulnerabilities on everyday software systems is significant. Despite deep learning models being proposed for vulnerability detection, their reliability is questionable. Prior evaluations show high recall/F1 scores of up to 99%, but these models underperform in practical scenarios, particularly when assessed on entire codebases rather than just the fixing commit. This paper introduces Real-Vul, a comprehensive dataset representing real-world scenarios for evaluating vulnerability detection models. Evaluating DeepWukong, LineVul, ReVeal, and IVDetect shows a significant drop in performance, with precision decreasing by up to 95 percentage points and F1 scores by up to 91 points. Furthermore, Model performance fluctuates based on vulnerability characteristics, with better F1 scores for information leaks or code injection than for path resolution or predictable return values. The results highlight a significant performance gap that needs addressing before deploying deep learning-based vulnerability detection in practical settings. Overfitting is identified as a key issue, and an augmentation technique is proposed, potentially improving performance by up to 30%. Contributions include a dataset creation approach for better model evaluation, Real-Vul dataset, and empirical evidence of deep learning models struggling in real-world settings.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

FuzzSlice: Pruning False Positives in Static Analysis Warnings Through Function-Level Fuzzing

Manual confirmation of static analysis reports is a daunting task. This is due to both the large number of warnings and the high density of false positives among them. Fuzzing techniques have been proposed to verify static analysis warnings. However, a major limitation is that fuzzing the whole project to reach all static analysis warnings is not feasible. This can take several days and exponential machine time to increase code coverage linearly. Therefore, we propose FuzzSlice, a novel framework that automatically prunes possible false positives among static analysis warnings. Unlike prior work that mostly focuses on confirming true positives among static analysis warnings, which requires end-to-end fuzzing, FuzzSlice focuses on ruling out potential false positives, which are the majority in static analysis reports. The key insight that we base our work on is that a warning that does not yield a crash when fuzzed at the function level in a given time budget is a possible false positive. To achieve this, FuzzSlice first aims to generate compilable code slices at the function level and then fuzzes these code slices instead of the entire binary. FuzzSlice is also unlikely to misclassify a true bug as a false positive because the crashing input can be reproduced by a fuzzer at the function level as well. We evaluate FuzzSlice on the Juliet synthetic dataset and real-world complex C projects. Our evaluation shows that the ground truth in the Juliet dataset had 864 false positives which were all detected by FuzzSlice. For the open-source repositories, we were able to get the developers from two of these open-source repositories to independently label these warnings. FuzzSlice automatically identifies 33 out of 53 false positives confirmed by developers in these two repositories. Thus FuzzSlice reduces false positives by 62.26% in the open-source repositories and by 100% in the Juliet dataset.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2023

RLocator: Reinforcement Learning for Bug Localization

Software developers spend a significant portion of time fixing bugs in their projects. To streamline this process, bug localization approaches have been proposed to identify the source code files that are likely responsible for a particular bug. Prior work proposed several similarity-based machine-learning techniques for bug localization. Despite significant advances in these techniques, they do not directly optimize the evaluation measures. We argue that directly optimizing evaluation measures can positively contribute to the performance of bug localization approaches. Therefore, In this paper, we utilize Reinforcement Learning (RL) techniques to directly optimize the ranking metrics. We propose RLocator, a Reinforcement Learning-based bug localization approach. We formulate RLocator using a Markov Decision Process (MDP) to optimize the evaluation measures directly. We present the technique and experimentally evaluate it based on a benchmark dataset of 8,316 bug reports from six highly popular Apache projects. The results of our evaluation reveal that RLocator achieves a Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) of 0.62, a Mean Average Precision (MAP) of 0.59, and a Top 1 score of 0.46. We compare RLocator with two state-of-the-art bug localization tools, FLIM and BugLocator. Our evaluation reveals that RLocator outperforms both approaches by a substantial margin, with improvements of 38.3% in MAP, 36.73% in MRR, and 23.68% in the Top K metric. These findings highlight that directly optimizing evaluation measures considerably contributes to performance improvement of the bug localization problem.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2020

On the Threat of npm Vulnerable Dependencies in Node.js Applications

Software vulnerabilities have a large negative impact on the software systems that we depend on daily. Reports on software vulnerabilities always paint a grim picture, with some reports showing that 83% of organizations depend on vulnerable software. However, our experience leads us to believe that, in the grand scheme of things, these software vulnerabilities may have less impact than what is reported. Therefore, we perform a study to better understand the threat of npm vulnerable packages used in Node.js applications. We define three threat levels for vulnerabilities in packages, based on their lifecycle, where a package vulnerability is assigned a low threat level if it was hidden or still unknown at the time it was used in the dependent application (t), medium threat level if the vulnerability was reported but not yet published at t, and high if it was publicly announced at t. Then, we perform an empirical study involving 6,673 real-world, active, and mature open source Node.js applications. Our findings show that although 67.93% of the examined applications depend on at least one vulnerable package, 94.91% of the vulnerable packages in those affected applications are classified as having low threat. Moreover, we find that in the case of vulnerable packages classified as having high threat, it is the application's lack of updating that makes them vulnerable, i.e., it is not the existence of the vulnerability that is the real problem. Furthermore, we verify our findings at different stages of the application's lifetime and find that our findings still hold. Our study argues that when it comes to software vulnerabilities, things may not be as bad as they seem and that considering vulnerability threat is key.

cs.SE↗