This brings the annotation style in sync with how we annotate new tests
these days. I also changed a few annotations to have different expected
outcome based on my understanding of the code.
This commit changes C++ `ConstructorCall` to behave like
`new`-expressions in Java: they are both `ExprNode`s and
`PostUpdateNodes`, and there's a "pre-update node" (here called
`PreConstructorCallNode`) to play the role of the qualifier argument
when calling a constructor.
This removes a lot of flow steps, but it all seems to be flow that was
present twice: both exiting a `PartialDefNode` and a
`DefinitionByReferenceNode`. All `DefinitionByReferenceNode`s are now
`PartialDefNode`s.
This changes all the getters on `Instruction` to use `getDef` instead of
`getAnyDef`, with the result that these getters now only have a result
if the definition is exact.
This is a backwards-INCOMPATIBLE change.
This commit changes how data flow works in the following code.
MyType x = source();
defineByReference(&x);
sink(x);
The question here is whether there should be flow from `source` to
`sink`. Such flow is desirable if `defineByReference` doesn't write to
all of `x`, but it's undesirable if `defineByReference` is a typical
init function in `C` that writes to every field or if
`defineByReference` is `memcpy` or `memset` on the full range.
Before 1.20.0, there would be flow from `source` to `sink` in case `x`
happened to be modeled with `BlockVar` but not in case `x` happened to
be modelled with SSA. The choice of modelling depends on an analysis of
how `x` is used elsewhere in the function, and it's supposed to be an
internal implementation detail that there are two ways to model
variables. In 1.20.0, I changed the `BlockVar` behavior so it worked the
same as SSA, never allowing that flow. It turns out that this change
broke a customer's query.
This commit reverts `BlockVar` to its old behavior of letting flow
propagate past the `defineByReference` call and then regains consistency
by changing all variables that are ever defined by reference to be
modelled with `BlockVar` instead of SSA. This means we now get too much
flow in certain cases, but that appears to be better overall than
getting too little flow. See also the discussion in CPP-336.
This commits also adds a test that uses `getParameter`. The new tests
demonstrate that support for array-to-pointer decay works, but we get
data flow to the array rather than its contents.
This change fixes a few key problems with the existing SSA implementations:
For unaliased SSA, we were incorrectly choosing to model a local variable that had accesses that did not cover the entire variable. This has been changed to ensure that all accesses to the variable are at offset zero and have the same type as the variable itself. This was only possible to fix now that every `MemoryOperand` has its own type.
For aliased SSA, we now correctly track the offset and size of each memory access using an interval of bit offsets covered by the access. The offset interval makes the overlap computation more straightforward. Again, this is only possible now that operands have types.
The `getXXXMemoryAccess` predicates are now driven by the `MemoryAccessKind` on the operands and results, instead of by specific opcodes.
This change does fix an existing false negative in the IR dataflow tests.
I added a few simple test cases to the SSA IR tests, covering the various kinds of overlap (MustExcactly, MustTotally, and MayPartially).
I added "PrintSSA.qll", which can dump the SSA memory accesses as part of an IR dump.
With this change, the `IRDataflowTestCommon.qll` and
`DataflowTestCommon.qll` files use the same definitions of sources and
sinks. Since the IR data flow library is meant to be compatible with the
AST data flow library, this is what we ought to be testing.
Two alerts change but not necessarily for the right reasons.
As we prepare to clarify how conversions are treated, we don't want a
`sink(...)` declaration where it's non-obvious which conversions are
applied to arguments.
This sort of fixes one FP and causes a new FN, but for the wrong reasons. The IR dataflow is tracking the reference itself, rather than the referred-to object. Once we can better model indirections, we can make this work correctly.
This change is still the right thing to do, because it ensures that the dataflow is looking at actual expression being computed by the instruction.
