The predicate
```
argumentValueFlowsThrough(ArgumentNode arg, OutNode out, CallContext cc)
```
has been generalized to
```
argumentValueFlowsThrough(
DataFlowCall call, ArgumentNode arg, Node out, ContentOption contentIn,
ContentOption contentOut
)
```
This enables us to summarize normal flow-through (as before), getters, setters,
as well as getter-setters.
This commit adds type information to data flow paths, by mapping node types onto
the smaller set of GVN types, and implementing `ppReprType()`.
The effect is a mere change in `DataFlow::PathNode::toString()`; no type-based
pruning is done yet.
In theory this bug could associated CaptureOutNodes with the wrong transitively called
callable. However, in practice I could not create a test case that revealed incorrect
behaviour. I've included one such test case in the commit.
I believe that the cause of this is that OutNode::getACall() is not actually used in the
data flow libraries. Instead, DataFlowDispatch::Cached::getAnOutNode is the predicate
which is used to associated OutNode's with DataFlowCall's in practice, and that is always
used in a context that correctly binds the runtime target of the call.
- General refactoring to fit with the shared data flow implementation.
- Move CFG splitting logic into `ControlFlowReachability.qll`.
- Replace `isAdditionalFlowStepIntoCall()` with `TaintedParameterNode`.
- Redefine `ReturnNode` to be the actual values that are returned, which should
yield better path information.
- No longer consider overrides in CIL calls.
Before this change,
```
flowOutOfCallableStep(CallNode call, ReturnNode ret, OutNode out, CallContext cc)
```
would compute all combinations of call sites `call` and returned expressions `ret`
up front.
Now, we instead introduce explicit return nodes, so each callable has exactly
one return node (as well as one for each `out`/`ref` parameter). There is then
local flow from a returned expression to the relevant return node, and
`flowOutOfCallableStep()` computes combinations of call sites and return nodes.
Not only does this result in better performance, it also makes `flowOutOfCallableStep()`
symmetric to `flowIntoCallableStep()`, where each argument is mapped to a parameter,
and not to all reads of that parameter.
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.
