The Community for Technology Leaders
Green Image
<p><b>Abstract</b>—Operating systems form a foundation for robust application software, making it important to understand how effective they are at handling exceptional conditions. The Ballista testing system was used to characterize the handling of exceptional input parameter values for up to 233 POSIX functions and system calls on each of 15 widely used operating system (OS) implementations. This identified ways to crash systems with a single call, ways to cause task hangs within OS code, ways to cause abnormal task termination within OS and library code, failures to implement defined POSIX functionality, and failures to report unsuccessful operations. Overall, only 55 percent to 76 percent of the exceptional tests performed generated error codes, depending on the operating system being tested. Approximately 6 percent to 19 percent of tests failed to generate any indication of error despite exceptional inputs. Approximately 1 percent to 3 percent of tests revealed failures to implement defined POSIX functionality for unusual, but specified, situations. Between 18 percent and 33 percent of exceptional tests caused the abnormal termination of an OS system call or library function, and five systems were completely crashed by individual system calls with exceptional parameter values. The most prevalent sources of these robustness failures were illegal pointer values, numeric overflows, and end-of-file overruns. There is significant opportunity for improving exception handling within OS calls and especially within C library functions. However, the role of signals vs. error return codes is both controversial and the source of divergent implementation philosophies, forming a potential barrier to writing portable, robust applications.</p>
Exception handling, POSIX, operating systems, robustness, testing, Ballista, multiversion comparison.

J. DeVale and P. Koopman, "The Exception Handling Effectiveness of POSIX Operating Systems," in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 26, no. , pp. 837-848, 2000.
84 ms
(Ver 3.3 (11022016))