-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Brodes/guard flow parsing #17907
Closed
+404
−78
Closed
Brodes/guard flow parsing #17907
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
aaf3ce2
Adding test cases for boolean flow.
bdrodes 40a6786
Adding expected false positive conditions for MissingCheckScanf once …
bdrodes bb989ba
Addingg expected file for test changes for MissingCheckScanf before c…
bdrodes ddfbb08
IRGuard overhaul to parse conditions using GVN.
bdrodes 0795bcc
Updating expected files for new IRGuard changes.
bdrodes d17dee5
Updating IRGuards.qll getDerivedInstruction. Always get the deriving …
bdrodes 6f17460
Revert "Updating IRGuards.qll getDerivedInstruction. Always get the d…
bdrodes 41e7dae
getDerivedInstruction uses getSourceValue()
bdrodes 418b113
Adding conversions to the getDerivedInstruction predicate. Changed al…
bdrodes 2dfa029
Misc. poc updates to address performance issues with wireshark.
bdrodes File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -184,3 +184,14 @@ int abort_test(int x) { | |
abort(); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
void boolean_flow(int x){ | ||
int b = x > 5; | ||
|
||
if(!b){ | ||
} | ||
|
||
if(b&&x<100){ | ||
|
||
} | ||
} |
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We don't want to use
toString
when implementing query/library logic.toString
output is being changed consistently to provide better UX in query output without any deprecation periods, and there shouldn't be any hidden invariants in the output of these predicates. So we need to come up with something else here.What's the job of this predicate really? I think you're trying to find an equivalent instruction that performs a comparison so that we can derive guards from that comparison instead of the original instruction, right? But why should we restrict that to be
CompareInstruction
s only? And why check that they have a differenttoString
? If it's because we want to not haveresult = instr
in this case could we not simply writeresult != instr
?And related to the QLDoc: What do you mean by "define"
instr
? I think we should have an example in the QLDoc to motivate this predicate.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll take the discussion offline. But some quick comments:
a->foo->bar
I don't need to get every a->foo->bar, I need to get the instruction that defines a->foo->bar and ignore everything else. I'm playing a game with GVN to give me the SSA def. We probably need to use SSA instead, but this was a quick demonstration of how to get what I wanted (it at least works with the AST version of this in my tests in the past)Taking further discussion into a DM until we settle on a few things.