COMMITGUARD: Differential Slice Fuzzing for Commit-Induced Bug Detection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17401v1
• Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 05:57:09 GMT
• Title: COMMITGUARD: Differential Slice Fuzzing for Commit-Induced Bug Detection
• Abstract summary: COMMITGUARD is a commit-aware differential slice-based fuzzing approach for verifying code changes.<n>We evaluate COMMITGUARD on 300 commits from openSSL, libpcap and leptonica.
• Score: 5.733954327924554
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• Independent Patch Verification for Coding Agents with a Bidirectional Reconstruct-and-Verify Framework [49.16055123488827]
  coding agents powered by large language models can now generate code patches directly from bug reports.<n>No mechanism independently verifies whether it truly resolves the reported problem.<n>We propose RETRACE, a training-free post-generation verification framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-09T22:59:13Z)
• Fantastic Adaptive Taxonomies and How to Use Them [100.20614173157708]
  AdaMAST converts execution traces into a compact, evidence-grounded failure taxonomy.<n>No code is hand-authored, no trace human-annotated.<n>In agent-system search, taxonomy-coded diagnoses of failed candidates outperform free-form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T17:41:16Z)
• SemaDiff: Identifying Semantic-Changing Commits with Generated Code and Tests [5.3138104073306005]
  Distinguishing semantic-preserving commits from changing ones remains an open challenge in software repository mining.<n>SemaDiff is a novel approach for identifying semantic-preserving commits through comparison of similar test execution on pre- and post-commit versions.<n>SemaDiff distinguishes accurately semantic-preserving from -- changing commits in about 76% of the cases, with a 100% precision in semantic-changing commit detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-14T12:23:22Z)
• Writing Bug Reports for Software Repair Agents: What Information Matters Most? [45.10027008889631]
  We study what makes a bug report agent-ready.<n>We focus on the 441 issues representing bug reports.<n>Our results suggest that agentic-first reports benefit most from information that narrows the agent's search and repair space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-10T16:00:57Z)
• Outrunning LLM Cutoffs: A Live Kernel Crash Resolution Benchmark for All [57.23434868678603]
  Live-kBench is an evaluation framework for self-evolving benchmarks that scrapes and evaluates agents on freshly discovered kernel bugs.<n> kEnv is an agent-agnostic crash-resolution environment for kernel compilation, execution, and feedback.<n>Using kEnv, we benchmark three state-of-the-art agents, showing that they resolve 74% of crashes on the first attempt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T19:06:15Z)
• Detecting Multiple Semantic Concerns in Tangled Code Commits [1.2578844450585998]
  Developers often bundle multiple concerns into tangled commits, obscuring intent and complicating maintenance.<n>Recent studies have used Conventional Commits Specification (CCS) and Language Models (LMs) to capture commit intent.<n>We present an empirical study using SLMs to detect multiple semantic concerns in tangled commits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T05:50:16Z)
• LLMBisect: Breaking Barriers in Bug Bisection with A Comparative Analysis Pipeline [35.18683484280968]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are well-positioned to break the barriers of existing solutions.<n>LLMs comprehend both textual data and code in patches and commits.<n>Our approach achieves significantly better accuracy than the state-of-the-art solution by more than 38%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T02:47:25Z)
• What Do They Fix? LLM-Aided Categorization of Security Patches for Critical Memory Bugs [46.325755802511026]
  We developLM, a dual-method pipeline that integrates two approaches based on a Large Language Model (LLM) and a fine-tuned small language model.<n>LM successfully identified 111 of 5,140 recent Linux kernel patches addressing OOB or UAF vulnerabilities, with 90 true positives confirmed by manual verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T18:06:36Z)
• AgentPack: A Dataset of Code Changes, Co-Authored by Agents and Humans [46.56091965723774]
  Fine-tuning large language models for code editing has typically relied on mining commits and pull requests.<n>We present AgentPack, a corpus of 1.3M code edits co-authored by Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, and Cursor Agent.<n>We show that models fine-tuned on AgentPack can outperform models trained on prior human-only commit corpora.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T05:28:22Z)
• Probing Pre-trained Language Models on Code Changes: Insights from ReDef, a High-Confidence Just-in-Time Defect Prediction Dataset [0.0]
  We present ReDef, a high-confidence benchmark of function-level modifications curated from 22 large-scale C/C++ projects.<n>Defective cases are anchored by revert commits, while clean cases are validated through post-hoc history checks.<n>This pipeline yields 3,164 defective and 10,268 clean modifications, offering substantially more reliable labels than prior existing resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-11T07:07:11Z)
• Identifying Root Cause of bugs by Capturing Changed Code Lines with Relational Graph Neural Networks [7.676213873923721]
  We propose a method called RC-Detection to detect root-cause deletion lines in changed code lines.<n>RC-Detection is used to detect root-cause deletion lines in changed code lines, thereby identifying the root cause of introduced bugs in bug-fixing commits.<n>Our experiments show that, compared to the most advanced root cause detection methods, RC-Detection improved Recall@1, Recall@2, Recall@3, and MFR by at 4.107%, 5.113%, 4.289%, and 24.536%, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T04:29:09Z)
• Using Developer Discussions to Guide Fixing Bugs in Software [51.00904399653609]
  We propose using bug report discussions, which are available before the task is performed and are also naturally occurring, avoiding the need for additional information from developers. We demonstrate that various forms of natural language context derived from such discussions can aid bug-fixing, even leading to improved performance over using commit messages corresponding to the oracle bug-fixing commits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-11T16:37:33Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.