blob: 22aef6cbd7044da3152b9a158af7fc7d9dc8fe5c (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
|
\section{Conclusion}
We have shown how an existing fuzzing tool can be modified so that its output is suitable for HLS, and then used it in a campaign to test the reliability of four modern HLS tools. In total, we found at least \numuniquebugs{} unique bugs across all the tools, including both crashes and miscompilations.
Further work could be done on supporting more HLS tools, especially those that claim to prove that their output is correct before terminating, such as Catapult C~\cite{mentor20_catap_high_level_synth}. % This could give an indication of how effective these proofs are, and how often they are actually able to complete their equivalence proofs during compilation in a feasible timescale.
Conventional compilers have become quite resilient to fuzzing over the last decade, so recent work on fuzzing compilers has had to employ increasingly imaginative techniques to keep finding new bugs~\cite{karine+20}. In contrast, we have found that HLS tools can be made to exhibit bugs even using the relatively basic fuzzing techniques employed in this project. We hope that this work further motivates the need for rigorous engineering of HLS tools, whether that is by validating that each output the tool produces is correct or by proving the HLS tool itself correct once and for all.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Alastair F. Donaldson for helpful feedback.
We acknowledge financial support from the Research Institute on Verified Trustworthy Software Systems (VeTSS), which is funded by the UK National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC).
%%% Local Variables:
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: "main"
%%% TeX-command-extra-options: "-shell-escape"
%%% End:
|
