LspFuzz: Hunting Bugs in Language Servers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Language Server Protocol (LSP) has revolutionized the integration of code intelligence in modern software development. There are approximately 300 LSP server implementations for various languages and 50 editors offering LSP integration. However, the reliability of LSP servers is a growing concern, as crashes can disable all code intelligence features and significantly impact productivity, while vulnerabilities can put developers at risk even when editing untrusted source code. Despite the widespread adoption of LSP, no existing techniques specifically target LSP server testing. To bridge this gap, we present LspFuzz, a grey-box hybrid fuzzer for systematic LSP server testing. Our key insight is that effective LSP server testing requires holistic mutation of source code and editor operations, as bugs often manifest from their combinations. To satisfy the sophisticated constraints of LSP and effectively explore the input space, we employ a two-stage mutation pipeline: syntax-aware mutations to source code, followed by context-aware dispatching of editor operations. We evaluated LspFuzz on four widely used LSP servers. LspFuzz demonstrated superior performance compared to baseline fuzzers, and uncovered previously unknown bugs in real-world LSP servers. Of the 51 bugs we reported, 42 have been confirmed, 26 have been fixed by developers, and two have been assigned CVE numbers. Our work advances the quality assurance of LSP servers, providing both a practical tool and foundational insights for future research in this domain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".