The conflicts came from how `this` is now a parameter but not a
`Parameter` on `master`.
Conflicts:
cpp/ql/src/semmle/code/cpp/ir/dataflow/internal/DataFlowUtil.qll
cpp/ql/test/library-tests/dataflow/DefaultTaintTracking/defaulttainttracking.cpp
cpp/ql/test/library-tests/dataflow/DefaultTaintTracking/tainted.expected
cpp/ql/test/library-tests/dataflow/DefaultTaintTracking/test_diff.expected
cpp/ql/test/library-tests/dataflow/dataflow-tests/dataflow-ir-consistency.expected
cpp/ql/test/library-tests/dataflow/fields/ir-flow.expected
cpp/ql/test/library-tests/syntax-zoo/dataflow-ir-consistency.expected
While investigating a bug with `TInstruction` sharing, I discovered that we had a case where alias analysis could create two `VirtualVariable`s for the same `Allocation`. For an indirect parameter allocation, we were using the type of the pointer variable as the type of the indirect allocation, instead of just `Unknown`. If the `IRType` of the pointer variable was the same type as the type of at least one access to the indirect allocation, we'd create both an `EntireAllocationVirtualVariable` and a `VariableVirtualVariable` for the allocation.
I added a new consistency test to guard against this in the future. This also turned out to be the root cause of the one existing known consistency failure in the IR tests.
The virtual-dispatch code for globals was missing any relationship
between the union field access and the global variable, which meant it
propagated function-pointer flow between any two fields of a global
struct. This resulted in false positives from
`cpp/tainted-format-string` on projects using SDL, such as
WohlSoft/PGE-Project.
In addition to fixing that bug, this commit also brings the code up to
date with the new style of modeling flow through global variables:
`DataFlow::Node.asVariable()`.
This test demonstrates that IR data flow conflates unrelated fields of a
global struct-typed variable and that this bug is not present in the old
AST-based implementation of `semmle.code.cpp.security.TaintTracking`.
