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.
The most common reason for the C# autobuilder to fail is because it
cannot determine a single unique .sln or .proj file to build, instead
reporting multiple sln or proj files at the same shortest depth. This
commit changes this to build all such files, rather than reporting an
error.
Added basic support for the using stmt, checked stmt, unchecked stmt
Note that the translations do not use the compiler generated element framework and hence they are just rough approximations. For accuracy, in the future their translation should use it.
These new results seem better than the previous ones, but the previous
ones are still there. Perhaps the `Buffer.qll` library could use some
adjustment, but this seems like an improvement in isolation.
The data flow library conflates pointers and their objects in some
places but not others. For example, a member function call `x.f()` will
cause flow from `x` of type `T` to `this` of type `T*` inside `f`. It
might be ideal to avoid that conflation, but that's not realistic
without using the IR.
We've had good experience in the taint tracking library with conflating
pointers and objects, and it improves results for field flow, so perhaps
it's time to try it out for all data flow.
TTransitiveCaptureCall represents a control flow node that may
transitively call many different callables which capture a variable from
the current scope. Captured variables are represented as synthetic
parameters to the callable, at negative indices. However, each of the
different targets may capture a different subset of variables from the
enclosing scope, so we must include the target along side the CFN in
order to prevent incorrect capture flow.
