I recently evaluated ~150 of bug reports on open source projects relating to my
GSoC'19 project, which was about tracking control dependencies that were
relevant to a bug report.
Here is what I found: when the condition is a function call, the extra notes
were almost always unimportant, and often times intrusive:
void f(int *x) {
x = nullptr;
if (alwaysTrue()) // We don't need a whole lot of explanation
// here, the function name is good enough.
*x = 5;
}
It almost always boiled down to a few "Returning null pointer, which participates
in a condition later", or similar notes. I struggled to find a single case
where the notes revealed anything interesting or some previously hidden
correlation, which is kind of the point of condition tracking.
This patch checks whether the condition is a function call, and if so, bails
out.
The argument against the patch is the popular feedback we hear from some of our
users, namely that they can never have too much information. I was specifically
fishing for examples that display best that my contribution did more good than
harm, so admittedly I set the bar high, and one can argue that there can be
non-trivial trickery inside functions, and function names may not be that
descriptive.
My argument for the patch is all those reports that got longer without any
notable improvement in the report intelligibility. I think the few exceptional
cases where this patch would remove notable information are an acceptable
sacrifice in favor of more reports being leaner.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116597
This patch concludes my GSoC'19 project by enabling track-conditions by default.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66381
llvm-svn: 369616
As discussed on the mailing list, notes originating from the tracking of foreach
loop conditions are always meaningless.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66131
llvm-svn: 369613
In D65724, I do a pretty thorough explanation about how I'm solving this
problem, I think that summary nails whats happening here ;)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65725
llvm-svn: 369596
Exactly what it says on the tin! Note that we're talking about interestingness
in general, hence this isn't a control-dependency-tracking specific patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65724
llvm-svn: 369589
Can't add much more to the title! This is part 1, the case where the collapse
point isn't in the condition point is the responsibility of ConditionBRVisitor,
which I'm addressing in part 2.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65575
llvm-svn: 369574
...because we're working with a BugReporterVisitor, and the non-evaluated part
of the condition isn't in the bugpath.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65290
llvm-svn: 368853
Well, what is says on the tin I guess!
Some more changes:
* Move isInevitablySinking() from BugReporter.cpp to CFGBlock's interface
* Rename and move findBlockForNode() from BugReporter.cpp to
ExplodedNode::getCFGBlock()
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65287
llvm-svn: 368836
Exactly what it says on the tin! The comments in the code detail this a
little more too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64272
llvm-svn: 368817
Summary:
The following code snippet taken from D64271#1572188 has an issue: namely,
because `flag`'s value isn't undef or a concrete int, it isn't being tracked.
int flag;
bool coin();
void foo() {
flag = coin();
}
void test() {
int *x = 0;
int local_flag;
flag = 1;
foo();
local_flag = flag;
if (local_flag)
x = new int;
foo();
local_flag = flag;
if (local_flag)
*x = 5;
}
This, in my opinion, makes no sense, other values may be interesting too.
Originally added by rC185608.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64287
llvm-svn: 368773
During the evaluation of D62883, I noticed a bunch of totally
meaningless notes with the pattern of "Calling 'A'" -> "Returning value"
-> "Returning from 'A'", which added no value to the report at all.
This patch (not only affecting tracked conditions mind you) prunes
diagnostic messages to functions that return a value not constrained to
be 0, and are also linear.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64232
llvm-svn: 368771
This patch is a major part of my GSoC project, aimed to improve the bug
reports of the analyzer.
TL;DR: Help the analyzer understand that some conditions are important,
and should be explained better. If an CFGBlock is a control dependency
of a block where an expression value is tracked, explain the condition
expression better by tracking it.
if (A) // let's explain why we believe A to be true
10 / x; // division by zero
This is an experimental feature, and can be enabled by the
off-by-default analyzer configuration "track-conditions".
In detail:
This idea was inspired by the program slicing algorithm. Essentially,
two things are used to produce a program slice (a subset of the program
relevant to a (statement, variable) pair): data and control
dependencies. The bug path (the linear path in the ExplodedGraph that leads
from the beginning of the analysis to the error node) enables to
analyzer to argue about data dependencies with relative ease.
Control dependencies are a different slice of the cake entirely.
Just because we reached a branch during symbolic execution, it
doesn't mean that that particular branch has any effect on whether the
bug would've occured. This means that we can't simply rely on the bug
path to gather control dependencies.
In previous patches, LLVM's IDFCalculator, which works on a control flow
graph rather than the ExplodedGraph was generalized to solve this issue.
We use this information to heuristically guess that the value of a tracked
expression depends greatly on it's control dependencies, and start
tracking them as well.
After plenty of evaluations this was seen as great idea, but still
lacking refinements (we should have different descriptions about a
conditions value), hence it's off-by-default.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62883
llvm-svn: 365207
Kristóf Umann