Write accesses in assignments, such as the access to `x` in `x = 0` are not
evaluated, so they should not have entries in the control flow graph. However,
qualifiers (and indexer arguments) should still be evaluated, for example in
```
x.Foo.Bar = 0;
```
the CFG should be `x --> x.Foo --> 0 --> x.Foo.Bar = 0` (as opposed to
`x --> x.Foo --> x.Foo.Bar --> 0 --> x.Foo.Bar = 0`, prior to this change).
A special case is assignments via acessors (properties, indexers, and event
adders), where we do want to include the access in the control flow graph,
as it represents the accessor call:
```
x.Prop = 0;
```
But instead of `x --> x.set_Prop --> 0 --> x.Prop = 0` the CFG should be
`x --> 0 --> x.set_Prop --> x.Prop = 0`, as the setter is called *after* the
assigned value has been evaluated.
An even more special case is tuple assignments via accessors:
```
(x.Prop1, y.Prop2) = (0, 1);
```
Here the CFG should be
`x --> y --> 0 --> 1 --> x.set_Prop1 --> y.set_Prop2 --> (x.Prop1, y.Prop2) = (0, 1)`.
The recent change to `AccessorCall` on dd99525566 resulted
in some bad join-orders, so I have (partly) reverted them. This means that the issues
orignally addressed by that change are now reintroduced, and I plan to instead apply a
fix to the CFG, which--unlike the original fix--should be able to handle multi-property-tuple
assignments.
Rewrite the predicate `succSplits()` and the construction of the IPA type `TSplits`.
The two are now mutually dependent, see more in the comment for the module
`SuccSplits`.
The syntactic node assiociated with accessor calls was previously always the
underlying member access. For example, in
```
x.Prop = y.Prop;
```
the implicit call to `x.set_Prop()` was at the syntactic node `x.Prop`, while the
implicit call to `y.get_Prop()` was at the syntactic node `y.Prop`.
However, this breaks the invariant that arguments to calls dominate the call itself,
as the argument `y.Prop` for the implicit `value` parameter in `x.set_Prop()` will
be evaluated after the call (the left-hand side in an assignment is evaluated before
the right-hand side).
The solution is to redefine the access call to `x.set_Prop()` to point to the whole
assignment `x.Prop = y.Prop`, instead of the access `x.Prop`. For reads, we still want
to associate the accessor call with the member access.
A corner case arises when multiple setters are called in a tuple assignment:
```
(x.Prop1, x.Prop2) = (0, 1)
```
In this case, we cannot associate the assignment with both `x.set_Prop1()` and
`x.set_Prop2()`, so we instead revert to using the underlying member accesses as
before.
Data flow nodes for expressions do not take CFG splitting into account. Example:
```
if (b)
x = tainted;
x = x.ToLower();
if (!b)
Use(x);
```
Flow is incorrectly reported from `tainted` to `x` in `Use(x)`, because the step
from `tainted` to `x.ToLower()` throws away the information that `b = true`.
The solution is to remember the splitting in data flow expression nodes, that is,
to represent the exact control flow node instead of just the expression. With that
we get flow from `tainted` to `[b = true] x.ToLower()`, but not from `tainted` to
`[b = false] x.ToLower()`.
The data flow API remains unchanged, but in order for analyses to fully benefit from
CFG splitting, sanitizers in particular should be CFG-based instead of expression-based:
```
if (b)
x = tainted;
if (IsInvalid(x))
return;
Use(x);
```
If the call to `IsInvalid()` is a sanitizer, then defining an expression node to be
a sanitizer using `GuardedExpr` will be too conservative (`x` in `Use(x)` is in fact
not guarded). However, `[b = true] x` in `[b = true] Use(x)` is guarded, and to help
defining guard-based sanitizers, the class `GuardedDataFlowNode` has been introduced.
