Conversation
…terminator, remove file pointer cases 1. Add headers, Adding missing headers: For obvious reasons. 2. Remove cases without null terminator: Both clang and g++ do not permit strings to be allocated that are declared to be shorter than the actual initializing expression. Since this is a C++ rule, we rule them out. 3. File pointer manipulation functions (e.g. fgets): Not required by the rule.
These contain false positives due to the limitation of the status quo of the query.
MichaelRFairhurst
left a comment
MichaelRFairhurst
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So close to ready!
| CallocFunctionCall() { this.isCallocCall() } | ||
|
|
||
| override int getMinNumBytes() { | ||
| result = lowerBound(this.getArgument(0)) * lowerBound(this.getArgument(1)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps we should file a bug to come back to this.
In theory, it would be great to have two versions of the query: one where we know with certainty that the resulting pointer is out of bounds if flow analysis is correct -- we assume the maximum allocation size and the smallest pointer offsets. Then another where we suspect a possible invalid pointer, where we assume the minimum allocation size and the largest pointer offsets. These could share most behavior and would have different precisions.
In the meantime, lets ship!
|
Two things to note about the multidimensional arrays:
|
MichaelRFairhurst
left a comment
MichaelRFairhurst
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
literally just minor tweaks!! This looks 🔥 great!
| /** | ||
| * This module provides classes and predicates for analyzing the size of buffers | ||
| * or objects from their base or a byte-offset, and identifying the potential for | ||
| * expressions accessing those buffers to overflow. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this case, can we have c/common/src/codingatandards/c/OutOfBounds.qll import cpp.OutOfBounds ? A simple wrapper import file would be a reasonable easy refactor.
(or find each c query that imports OutOfBounds and update those)?
I think it's probably reasonable
| * @precision medium | ||
| * @problem.severity error | ||
| * @tags external/misra/id/rule-8-7-1 | ||
| * scope/system |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks like we're missing correctness
These are no longer false negatives, is now reported correctly with the new algorith (`srcSinkLengthMap`).
This is consistently broken across all queries that depend on it: - c/misra/src/rules/RULE-21-17/StringFunctionPointerArgumentOutOfBounds.ql - c/misra/src/rules/RULE-21-18/StringLibrarySizeArgumentOutOfBounds.ql - c/cert/src/rules/ARR30-C/DoNotFormOutOfBoundsPointersOrArraySubscripts.ql - c/cert/src/rules/ARR38-C/LibraryFunctionArgumentOutOfBounds.ql
This is the aftermath of fixing the formatting.
| * | ||
| * & | ||
| * | ||
| * c.f. `TAddressOfIndex` branch of `PointerFormation`. |
Description
Implement Memory1 (
RULE-8-7-1).Change request type
.ql,.qll,.qlsor unit tests)Rules with added or modified queries
RULE-8-7-1Release change checklist
A change note (development_handbook.md#change-notes) is required for any pull request which modifies:
If you are only adding new rule queries, a change note is not required.
Author: Is a change note required?
🚨🚨🚨
Reviewer: Confirm that format of shared queries (not the .qll file, the
.ql file that imports it) is valid by running them within VS Code.
Reviewer: Confirm that either a change note is not required or the change note is required and has been added.
Query development review checklist
For PRs that add new queries or modify existing queries, the following checklist should be completed by both the author and reviewer:
Author
As a rule of thumb, predicates specific to the query should take no more than 1 minute, and for simple queries be under 10 seconds. If this is not the case, this should be highlighted and agreed in the code review process.
Reviewer
As a rule of thumb, predicates specific to the query should take no more than 1 minute, and for simple queries be under 10 seconds. If this is not the case, this should be highlighted and agreed in the code review process.