Skip to content
Review

COMMITGUARD: Differential Slice Fuzzing for Commit-Induced Bug Detection

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 54 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

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, and a commit-aware differential slice-based fuzzing approach for verifying code changes is introduced.

Abstract

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.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

CodeMechanic: Bug-Property-Guided Program Mitigation

This work presents CodeMechanic, a bug-property-guided system for generating constrained mit- igations for spatial memory corruption that combines a two-dimensional static and dynamic context extractor with in-prompt debugging knowledge and stepwise val- idation to limit the effect of LLM errors.

Han Zheng, Rafaila Galanopoulou, Ilia Shumailov et al. · 0 citations
Aug 2026

SNIPTEST: Fuzzing Multi-Level Code Slices for Validating Vulnerabilities

SNIPTEST is an execution-based warning triage framework that generates and fuzzes compiled code slices centered around static-analysis warnings that employs a layer-by-layer slicing strategy, incrementally expanding context around the target location to validate potential vulnerabilities with increasing precision.

Aniruddhan Murali, Noble Saji Mathews, Mahmoud Alfadel et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

SemaDiff: Identifying Semantic-Changing Commits with Generated Code and Tests

SemaDiff, a novel approach for identifying semantic-preserving commits through behaviour-based analysis, is proposed, and results show that SemaDiff distinguishes accurately semantic-preserving from -- changing commits in about 76% of the cases, with a 100% precision in semantic-changing commit detection.

Maha Ayub, Michael Konstantinou, Ahmed Khanfir et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

LLM-Based Invariant Testing for Software Functional Bugs

LISA iteratively generates API sequences and program invariants guided by API n-gram feedback, achieving higher bug-detection rates and competitive code coverage compared with both fuzzing and prior LLM-based test generation approaches, and reporting each finding as a high-confidence bug candidate for developer confirmation.

Ruogu Yang, Yifeng He, Yundi Xu et al. · 0 citations
#software testing Preprint Aug 2026

BreakGuard: Towards Detecting Dependency Breaking Changes with LLM-Generated Tests

This work proposes BreakGuard, an approach that generates a test suite to detect breaking changes in clients and successfully detected BCs from different library categories, but finds LLM-generated tests to be more reliable for detecting crash-type breaking changes as opposed to behavioural BCs.

Rachna Raj, Benoit Baudry, Diego Elias Costa · 0 citations
Jul 2026

Stack integrity for practical code-reuse attack defense

StackPatroller is proposed, a stack-integrity-based runtime supervision framework that enforces program integrity through configurable policies that monitors runtime stack contexts to detect early deviations from normal execution, enabling the identification of whole-function reuse and certain forward-edge attacks earlier—within user mode before any unintended system calls occur.

Yuanheng Xu, Si-Yu Zhang, Juan Wang et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.