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`.
This cleans up the test results, which were confusing because functions
like `sink` had multiple locations.
There are some additional results now involving casts to `const char *`
because previously it varied whether `sink` used `const`, and now it
always does.
Adding a new test case leads to changes in all `.expected` files in its
directory.
The new results show that the `DefinitionsAndUses` library does not
model `std::addressof` correctly, but that library is not intended to be
used for new code.
I didn't add this support in `AddressConstantExpression.qll` since I
think it would require extra work and testing to get the constexprness
right. My long-term plan for `AddressConstantExpression.qll` is to move
its functionality to the extractor.
Flow from a definition by reference of a field into its object was
working inconsistently and in a very syntax-dependent way. For a
function `f` receiving a reference, `f(a->x)` could propagate data back
to `a` via the _reverse read_ mechanism in the shared data-flow library,
but for a function `g` receiving a pointer, `g(&a->x)` would not work.
And `f((*a).x)` would not work either.
In all cases, the issue was that the shared data-flow library propagates
data backwards between `PostUpdateNode`s only, but there is no
`PostUpdateNode` for `a->x` in `g(&a->x)`. This pull request inserts
such post-update nodes where appropriate and links them to their
neighbors. In this exapmle, flow back from the output parameter of `g`
passes first to the `PostUpdateNode` of `&`, then to the (new)
`PostUpdateNode` of `a->x`, and finally, as a _reverse read_ with the
appropriate field projection, to `a`.
This case was added in dccc0f4db. The surrounding code has changed a lot
since then, and the case no longer seems to have an effect except to
create some dead ends and possibly cycles in the local flow graph.
Also clarify the docs on `Call` to decrease the likelyhood of such an
omission happening again.
The updated test reflects that `f1.operator()` lets the address of `f1`
escape from the caller.
