hohn/codeql
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/github/codeql.git synced 2026-01-30 06:42:57 +01:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Make comment on BarrierGuard more specific

Browse Source 
The problem that this comment is trying to warn about is the following:
say you have two subclasses of BarrierGuard BG1 and BG2, both of which
contain some node g. Also assume that you have a configuration C which
specifies BG1 as a barrier guard, but not BG2. Because g is contained in
both classes, you will then still get the barrier guard definition from
BG2 due to the way dynamic dispatch works in QL.
This commit is contained in:
Owen Mansel-Chan
2021-01-21 15:14:27 +00:00
parent 7dfe5d9f07
commit 06c6ceda50
1 changed files with 4 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

5
ql/src/semmle/go/dataflow/internal/DataFlowUtil.qll
View File

@@ -1115,7 +1115,10 @@ predicate localFlow(Node source, Node sink) { localFlowStep*(source, sink) }
* characteristic predicate precisely specifying the guard, and override
* `checks` to specify what is being validated and in which branch.
*
* It is important that all extending classes in scope are disjoint.
* When using a data-flow or taint-flow configuration `cfg`, it is important
* that any classes extending BarrierGuard in scope which are not used in `cfg`
* are disjoint from any classes extending BarrierGuard in scope which are used
* in `cfg`.
*/
abstract class BarrierGuard extends Node {
/** Holds if this guard validates `e` upon evaluating to `branch`. */