Static analysis is a powerful technique for bug detection in critical systems like operating system kernels. However, designing and implementing static analyzers is challenging, time-consuming, and typically limited to predefined bug patterns. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for static analysis, directly applying them to scan large codebases remains impractical due to computational constraints and contextual limitations. We present KNighter, the first approach that unlocks practical LLM-based static analysis by automatically synthesizing static analyzers from historical bug patterns. Rather than using LLMs to directly analyze massive codebases, our key insight is leveraging LLMs to generate specialized static analyzers guided by historical patch knowledge. KNighter implements this vision through a multi-stage synthesis pipeline that validates checker correctness against original patches and employs an automated refinement process to iteratively reduce false positives. Our evaluation on the Linux kernel demonstrates that KNighter generates high-precision checkers capable of detecting diverse bug patterns overlooked by existing human-written analyzers. To date, KNighter-synthesized checkers have discovered 70 new bugs/vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel, with 56 confirmed and 41 already fixed. 11 of these findings have been assigned CVE numbers. This work establishes an entirely new paradigm for scalable, reliable, and traceable LLM-based static analysis for real-world systems via checker synthesis.

LLM-based assistants, such as GitHub Copilot and ChatGPT, have the potential to generate code that fulfills a programming task described in a natural language description, referred to as a prompt. The widespread accessibility of these assistants enables users with diverse backgrounds to generate code and integrate it into software projects. However, studies show that code generated by LLMs is prone to bugs and may miss various corner cases in task specifications. Presenting such buggy code to users can impact their reliability and trust in LLM-based assistants. Moreover, significant efforts are required by the user to detect and repair any bug present in the code, especially if no test cases are available. In this study, we propose a self-refinement method aimed at improving the reliability of code generated by LLMs by minimizing the number of bugs before execution, without human intervention, and in the absence of test cases. Our approach is based on targeted Verification Questions (VQs) to identify potential bugs within the initial code. These VQs target various nodes within the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) of the initial code, which have the potential to trigger specific types of bug patterns commonly found in LLM-generated code. Finally, our method attempts to repair these potential bugs by re-prompting the LLM with the targeted VQs and the initial code. Our evaluation, based on programming tasks in the CoderEval dataset, demonstrates that our proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art methods by decreasing the number of targeted errors in the code between 21% to 62% and improving the number of executable code instances to 13%.

Large Language Models (LLMs) for code have gained significant attention recently. They can generate code in different programming languages based on provided prompts, fulfilling a long-lasting dream in Software Engineering (SE), i.e., automatic code generation. Similar to human-written code, LLM-generated code is prone to bugs, and these bugs have not yet been thoroughly examined by the community. Given the increasing adoption of LLM-based code generation tools (e.g., GitHub Copilot) in SE activities, it is critical to understand the characteristics of bugs contained in code generated by LLMs. This paper examines a sample of 333 bugs collected from code generated using three leading LLMs (i.e., CodeGen, PanGu-Coder, and Codex) and identifies the following 10 distinctive bug patterns: Misinterpretations, Syntax Error, Silly Mistake, Prompt-biased code, Missing Corner Case, Wrong Input Type, Hallucinated Object, Wrong Attribute, Incomplete Generation, and Non-Prompted Consideration. The bug patterns are presented in the form of a taxonomy. The identified bug patterns are validated using an online survey with 34 LLM practitioners and researchers. The surveyed participants generally asserted the significance and prevalence of the bug patterns. Researchers and practitioners can leverage these findings to develop effective quality assurance techniques for LLM-generated code. This study sheds light on the distinctive characteristics of LLM-generated code.