mirror of
https://github.com/github/codeql.git
synced 2025-12-18 01:33:15 +01:00
73 lines
1.4 KiB
C++
73 lines
1.4 KiB
C++
namespace Complex
|
|
{
|
|
class Foo
|
|
{
|
|
int a_;
|
|
int b_;
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
int a() { return a_; }
|
|
int b() { return b_; }
|
|
void setA(int a) { a_ = a; }
|
|
void setB(int b) { b_ = b; }
|
|
|
|
Foo(int a, int b) : a_(a), b_(b){};
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
class Bar
|
|
{
|
|
public:
|
|
Foo f;
|
|
|
|
Bar() : f(0, 0) {}
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
int user_input()
|
|
{
|
|
return 42;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
void sink(int x)
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
void bar(Bar &b)
|
|
{
|
|
// The library correctly finds that the four `user_input` sources can make it
|
|
// to the `sink` calls, but it also finds some source/sink combinations that
|
|
// are impossible. Those false positives here are a consequence of how the
|
|
// shared data flow library overapproximates field flow. The library only
|
|
// tracks the head (`f`) and the length (2) of the field access path, and
|
|
// then it tracks that both `a_` and `b_` have followed `f` in _some_ access
|
|
// path somewhere in the search. That makes the library conclude that there
|
|
// could be flow to `b.f.a_` even when the flow was actually to `b.f.b_`.
|
|
sink(b.f.a()); // flow [FALSE POSITIVE through `b2.f.setB` and `b3.f.setB`]
|
|
sink(b.f.b()); // flow [FALSE POSITIVE through `b1.f.setA` and `b3.f.setA`]
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
void foo()
|
|
{
|
|
Bar b1;
|
|
Bar b2;
|
|
Bar b3;
|
|
Bar b4;
|
|
|
|
b1.f.setA(user_input());
|
|
b2.f.setB(user_input());
|
|
b3.f.setA(user_input());
|
|
b3.f.setB(user_input());
|
|
|
|
// Only a() should alert
|
|
bar(b1);
|
|
|
|
// Only b() should alert
|
|
bar(b2);
|
|
|
|
// Both a() and b() should alert
|
|
bar(b3);
|
|
|
|
// Nothing should alert
|
|
bar(b4);
|
|
}
|
|
}; // namespace Complex
|