+ Improved display names for allocators and deallocators
The checker checks if a deallocation function matches allocation one. ('free' for 'malloc', 'delete' for 'new' etc.)
llvm-svn: 178250
These types will not have a CXXConstructExpr to do the initialization for
them. Previously we just used a simple call to ProgramState::bindLoc, but
that doesn't trigger proper checker callbacks (like pointer escape).
Found by Anton Yartsev.
llvm-svn: 178160
Previously all unimplemented methods for a class were grouped under
a single warning, with all the unimplemented methods mentioned
as notes. Based on feedback from users, most users would like
a separate warning for each method, with a note pointing back to
the original method declaration.
Implements <rdar://problem/13350414>
llvm-svn: 178097
Register the nil tracking visitors with the region and refactor trackNullOrUndefValue a bit.
Also adds the cast and paren stripping before checking if the value is an OpaqueValueExpr
or ExprWithCleanups.
llvm-svn: 178093
This addresses an undefined value false positive from concreteOffsetBindingIsInvalidatedBySymbolicOffsetAssignment.
Fixes PR14877; radar://12991168.
llvm-svn: 177905
These aren't generated by default, but they are needed when either side of
the comparison is tainted.
Should fix our internal buildbot.
llvm-svn: 177846
In C, comparisons between signed and unsigned numbers are always done in
unsigned-space. Thus, we should know that "i >= 0U" is always true, even
if 'i' is signed. Similarly, "u >= 0" is also always true, even though '0'
is signed.
Part of <rdar://problem/13239003> (false positives related to std::vector)
llvm-svn: 177806
We can support the full range of comparison operations between two locations
by canonicalizing them as subtraction, as in the previous commit.
This won't work (well) if either location includes an offset, or (again)
if the comparisons are not consistent about which region comes first.
<rdar://problem/13239003>
llvm-svn: 177803
Canonicalizing these two forms allows us to better model containers like
std::vector, which use "m_start != m_finish" to implement empty() but
"m_finish - m_start" to implement size(). The analyzer should have a
consistent interpretation of these two symbolic expressions, even though
it's not properly reasoning about either one yet.
The other unfortunate thing is that while the size() expression will only
ever be written "m_finish - m_start", the comparison may be written
"m_finish == m_start" or "m_start == m_finish". Right now the analyzer does
not attempt to canonicalize those two expressions, since it doesn't know
which length expression to pick. Doing this correctly will probably require
implementing unary minus as a new SymExpr kind (<rdar://problem/12351075>).
For now, the analyzer inverts the order of arguments in the comparison to
build the subtraction, on the assumption that "begin() != end()" is
written more often than "end() != begin()". This is purely speculation.
<rdar://problem/13239003>
llvm-svn: 177801
We just treat this as opaque symbols, but even that allows us to handle
simple cases where the same condition is tested twice. This is very common
in the STL, which means that any project using the STL gets spurious errors.
Part of <rdar://problem/13239003>.
llvm-svn: 177800
This fixes some mistaken condition logic in RegionStore that caused
global variables to be invalidated when /any/ region was invalidated,
rather than only as part of opaque function calls. This was only
being used by CStringChecker, and so users will now see that strcpy()
and friends do not invalidate global variables.
Also, add a test case we don't handle properly: explicitly-assigned
global variables aren't being invalidated by opaque calls. This is
being tracked by <rdar://problem/13464044>.
llvm-svn: 177572
Due to improper modelling of copy constructors (specifically, their
const reference arguments), we were producing spurious leak warnings
for allocated memory stored in structs. In order to silence this, we
decided to consider storing into a struct to be the same as escaping.
However, the previous commit has fixed this issue and we can now properly
distinguish leaked memory that happens to be in a struct from a buffer
that escapes within a struct wrapper.
Originally applied in r161511, reverted in r174468.
<rdar://problem/12945937>
llvm-svn: 177571
In this case, the value of 'x' may be changed after the call to indirectAccess:
struct Wrapper {
int *ptr;
};
void indirectAccess(const Wrapper &w);
void test() {
int x = 42;
Wrapper w = { x };
clang_analyzer_eval(x == 42); // TRUE
indirectAccess(w);
clang_analyzer_eval(x == 42); // UNKNOWN
}
This is important for modelling return-by-value objects in C++, to show
that the contents of the struct are escaping in the return copy-constructor.
<rdar://problem/13239826>
llvm-svn: 177570
A floating-point version is nice for testing unknown values, but it's
good to be able to check all parts of the structure as well.
Test change only, no functionality change.
llvm-svn: 177455
This fixes a crash when analyzing LLVM that was exposed by r177220 (modeling of
trivial copy/move assignment operators).
When we look up a lazy binding for “Builder”, we see the direct binding of Loc at offset 0.
Previously, we believed the binding, which led to a crash. Now, we do not believe it as
the types do not match.
llvm-svn: 177453
r175234 allowed the analyzer to model trivial copy/move constructors as
an aggregate bind. This commit extends that to trivial assignment
operators as well. Like the last commit, one of the motivating factors here
is not warning when the right-hand object is partially-initialized, which
can have legitimate uses.
<rdar://problem/13405162>
llvm-svn: 177220
Fixes a FIXME, improves dead symbol collection, suppresses a false positive,
which resulted from reusing the same symbol twice for simulation of 2 calls to the same function.
Fixing this lead to 2 possible false negatives in CString checker. Since the checker is still alpha and
the solution will not require revert of this commit, move the tests to a FIXME section.
llvm-svn: 177206
In the test case below, the value V is not constrained to 0 in ErrorNode but it is in node N.
So we used to fail to register the Suppression visitor.
We also need to change the way we determine that the Visitor should kick in because the node N belongs to
the ExplodedGraph and might not be on the BugReporter path that the visitor sees. Instead of trying to match the node,
turn on the visitor when we see the last node in which the symbol is ‘0’.
llvm-svn: 177121
We were failing to match the output line, which led to us collecting no
stats at all, which led to a divide-by-zero error.
Fixes PR15510.
llvm-svn: 177084
When BugReporter tracks C++ references involved in a null pointer violation, we
want to differentiate between a null reference and a reference to a null pointer. In the
first case, we want to track the region for the reference location; in the second, we want
to track the null pointer.
In addition, the core creates CXXTempObjectRegion to represent the location of the
C++ reference, so teach FindLastStoreBRVisitor about it.
This helps null pointer suppression to kick in.
(Patch by Anna and Jordan.)
llvm-svn: 176969
The visitor used to assume that the value it’s tracking is null in the first node it examines. This is not true.
If we are registering the Suppress Inlined Defensive checks visitor while traversing in another visitor
(such as FindlastStoreVisitor). When we restart with the IDC visitor, the invariance of the visitor does
not hold since the symbol we are tracking no longer exists at that point.
I had to pass the ErrorNode when creating the IDC visitor, because, in some cases, node N is
neither the error node nor will be visible along the path (we had not finalized the path at that point
and are dealing with ExplodedGraph.)
We should revisit the other visitors which might not be aware that they might get nodes, which are
later in path than the trigger point.
This suppresses a number of inline defensive checks in JavaScriptCore.
llvm-svn: 176756
Previously, MallocChecker's pointer escape check and its post-call state
update for Objective-C method calls had a fair amount duplicated logic
and not-entirely-consistent checks. This commit restructures all this to
be more consistent and possibly allow us to be more aggressive in warning
about double-frees.
New policy (applies to system header methods only):
(1) If this is a method we know about, model it as taking/holding ownership
of the passed-in buffer.
(1a) ...unless there's a "freeWhenDone:" parameter with a zero (NO) value.
(2) If there's a "freeWhenDone:" parameter (but it's not a method we know
about), treat the buffer as escaping if the value is non-zero (YES) and
non-escaping if it's zero (NO).
(3) If the first selector piece ends with "NoCopy" (but it's not a method we
know about and there's no "freeWhenDone:" parameter), treat the buffer
as escaping.
The reason that (2) and (3) don't explicitly model the ownership transfer is
because we can't be sure that they will actually free the memory using free(),
and we wouldn't want to emit a spurious "mismatched allocator" warning
(coming in Anton's upcoming patch). In the future, we may have an idea of a
"generic deallocation", i.e. we assume that the deallocator is correct but
still continue tracking the region so that we can warn about double-frees.
Patch by Anton Yartsev, with modifications from me.
llvm-svn: 176744
r176010 introduced the notion of "interesting" lvalue expressions, whose
nodes are guaranteed never to be reclaimed by the ExplodedGraph. This was
used in bugreporter::trackNullOrUndefValue to find the region that contains
the null or undef value being tracked.
However, the /rvalue/ nodes (i.e. the loads from these lvalues that produce
a null or undef value) /are/ still being reclaimed, and if we couldn't
find the node for the rvalue, we just give up. This patch changes that so
that we look for the node for either the rvalue or the lvalue -- preferring
the former, since it lets us fall back to value-only tracking in cases
where we can't get a region, but allowing the latter as well.
<rdar://problem/13342842>
llvm-svn: 176737
The subdirectory has a lit.local.cfg that marks the tests unsupported
if llvm was built without Asserts. There will be a patch in LLVM
that disables statistics gathering when built without Asserts so
that full Release builds can be faster. Statistics can also
be enabled by building with -DLLVM_ENABLE_STATS.
llvm-svn: 176730
Warn about null pointer dereference earlier when a reference to a null pointer is
passed in a call. The idea is that even though the standard might allow this, reporting
the issue earlier is better for diagnostics (the error is reported closer to the place where
the pointer was set to NULL). This also simplifies analyzer’s diagnostic logic, which has
to track “where the null came from”. As a consequence, some of our null pointer
warning suppression mechanisms started triggering more often.
TODO: Change the name of the file and class to reflect the new check.
llvm-svn: 176612
Officially in the C++ standard, a null reference cannot exist. However,
it's still very easy to create one:
int &getNullRef() {
int *p = 0;
return *p;
}
We already check that binds to reference regions don't create null references.
This patch checks that we don't create null references by returning, either.
<rdar://problem/13364378>
llvm-svn: 176601
The second modification does not lead to any visible result, but, theoretically, is what we should
have been looking at to begin with since we are checking if the node was assumed to be null in
an inlined function.
llvm-svn: 176576
We weren't treating a cf_audited_transfer CFRetain as returning +1 because
its name doesn't contain "Create" or "Copy". Oops! Fortunately, the
standard definitions of these functions are not marked audited.
<rdar://problem/13339601>
llvm-svn: 176463
Inlining brought a few "null pointer use" false positives, which occur because
the callee defensively checks if a pointer is NULL, whereas the caller knows
that the pointer cannot be NULL in the context of the given call.
This is a first attempt to silence these warnings by tracking the symbolic value
along the execution path in the BugReporter. The new visitor finds the node
in which the symbol was first constrained to NULL. If the node belongs to
a function on the active stack, the warning is reported, otherwise, it is
suppressed.
There are several areas for follow up work, for example:
- How do we differentiate the cases where the first check is followed by
another one, which does happen on the active stack?
Also, this only silences a fraction of null pointer use warnings. For example, it
does not do anything for the cases where NULL was assigned inside a callee.
llvm-svn: 176402
Previously we were assuming that we'd never ask for the sub-region bindings
of a bitfield, since a bitfield cannot have subregions. However,
unification of code paths has made that assumption invalid. While we could
take advantage of this by just checking for the single possible binding,
it's probably better to do the right thing, so that if/when we someday
support unions we'll do the right thing there, too.
This fixes a handful of false positives in analyzing LLVM.
<rdar://problem/13325522>
llvm-svn: 176388
Most map types have an operator[] that inserts a new element if the key
isn't found, then returns a reference to the value slot so that you can
assign into it. However, if the value type is a pointer, it will be
initialized to null. This is usually no problem.
However, if the user /knows/ the map contains a value for a particular key,
they may just use it immediately:
// From ClangSACheckersEmitter.cpp
recordGroupMap[group]->Checkers
In this case the analyzer reports a null dereference on the path where the
key is not in the map, even though the user knows that path is impossible
here. They could silence the warning by adding an assertion, but that means
splitting up the expression and introducing a local variable. (Note that
the analyzer has no way of knowing that recordGroupMap[group] will return
the same reference if called twice in a row!)
We already have logic that says a null dereference has a high chance of
being a false positive if the null came from an inlined function. This
patch simply extends that to references whose rvalues are null as well,
silencing several false positives in LLVM.
<rdar://problem/13239854>
llvm-svn: 176371
Anton Yartsev