[analyzer] Fix ValistChecker false-positive involving symbolic pointers

In the following example:

int va_list_get_int(va_list *va) {
return va_arg(*va, int); // FP
}

The `*va` expression w

[analyzer] Fix ValistChecker false-positive involving symbolic pointers

In the following example:

int va_list_get_int(va_list *va) {
return va_arg(*va, int); // FP
}

The `*va` expression will be something like `Element{SymRegion{va}, 0, va_list}`.
We use `ElementRegions` for representing the result of the dereference.
In this case, the `IsSymbolic` was set to `false` in the
`getVAListAsRegion()`.

Hence, before checking if the memregion is a SymRegion, we should take
the base of that region.

Analogously to the previous example, one can craft other cases:

struct MyVaList {
va_list l;
};
int va_list_get_int(struct MyVaList va) {
return va_arg(va.l, int); // FP
}

But it would also work if the `va_list` would be in the base or derived
part of a class. `ObjCIvarRegions` are likely also susceptible.
I'm not explicitly demonstrating these cases.

PS: Check the `MemRegion::getBaseRegion()` definition.

Fixes #55009

Reviewed By: xazax.hun

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124239

show more ...

[analyzer] Clean checker options from bool to DefaultBool (NFC)

A recent review emphasized the preference to use DefaultBool instead of
bool for checker options. This change is a NFC and cleans up s

[analyzer] Clean checker options from bool to DefaultBool (NFC)

A recent review emphasized the preference to use DefaultBool instead of
bool for checker options. This change is a NFC and cleans up some of the
instances where bool was used, and could be changed to DefaultBool.

Reviewed By: steakhal

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123464

show more ...

[analyzer][NFC] Switch to using CallDescription::matches() instead of isCalled()

This patch replaces each use of the previous API with the new one.
In variadic cases, it will use the ADL `matchesAny

[analyzer][NFC] Switch to using CallDescription::matches() instead of isCalled()

This patch replaces each use of the previous API with the new one.
In variadic cases, it will use the ADL `matchesAny(Call, CDs...)`
variadic function.
Also simplifies some code involving such operations.

Reviewed By: martong, xazax.hun

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113591

show more ...

[analyzer][NFC] Separate CallDescription from CallEvent

`CallDescriptions` deserve its own translation unit.
This patch simply moves the corresponding parts.
Also includes the `CallDescription.h` wh

[analyzer][NFC] Separate CallDescription from CallEvent

`CallDescriptions` deserve its own translation unit.
This patch simply moves the corresponding parts.
Also includes the `CallDescription.h` where it's necessary.

Reviewed By: martong, xazax.hun, Szelethus

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113587

show more ...

[analyzer][NFC] Change LangOptions to CheckerManager in the shouldRegister* functions

Some checkers may not only depend on language options but also analyzer options.
To make this possible this patc

[analyzer][NFC] Change LangOptions to CheckerManager in the shouldRegister* functions

Some checkers may not only depend on language options but also analyzer options.
To make this possible this patch changes the parameter of the shouldRegister*
function to CheckerManager to be able to query the analyzer options when
deciding whether the checker should be registered.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75271

show more ...

[analyzer][NFC] Fix inconsistent references to checkers as "checks"

Traditionally, clang-tidy uses the term check, and the analyzer uses checker,
but in the very early years, this wasn't the case, a

[analyzer][NFC] Fix inconsistent references to checkers as "checks"

Traditionally, clang-tidy uses the term check, and the analyzer uses checker,
but in the very early years, this wasn't the case, and code originating from the
early 2010's still incorrectly refer to checkers as checks.

This patch attempts to hunt down most of these, aiming to refer to checkers as
checkers, but preserve references to callback functions (like checkPreCall) as
checks.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140

llvm-svn: 371760

show more ...

[analyzer] NFC: Move getStmt() and createEndOfPath() out of PathDiagnostic.

These static functions deal with ExplodedNodes which is something we don't want
the PathDiagnostic interface to know anyth

[analyzer] NFC: Move getStmt() and createEndOfPath() out of PathDiagnostic.

These static functions deal with ExplodedNodes which is something we don't want
the PathDiagnostic interface to know anything about, as it's planned to be
moved out of libStaticAnalyzerCore.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67382

llvm-svn: 371659

show more ...

[analyzer] NFC: Introduce sub-classes for path-sensitive and basic reports.

Checkers are now required to specify whether they're creating a
path-sensitive report or a path-insensitive report by cons

[analyzer] NFC: Introduce sub-classes for path-sensitive and basic reports.

Checkers are now required to specify whether they're creating a
path-sensitive report or a path-insensitive report by constructing an
object of the respective type.

This makes BugReporter more independent from the rest of the Static Analyzer
because all Analyzer-specific code is now in sub-classes.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66572

llvm-svn: 371450

show more ...

[analyzer] pr43179: Make CallDescription defensive against C variadic functions.

Most functions that our checkers react upon are not C-style variadic functions,
and therefore they have as many actua

[analyzer] pr43179: Make CallDescription defensive against C variadic functions.

Most functions that our checkers react upon are not C-style variadic functions,
and therefore they have as many actual arguments as they have formal parameters.

However, it's not impossible to define a variadic function with the same name.
This will crash any checker that relies on CallDescription to check the number
of arguments but silently assumes that the number of parameters is the same.

Change CallDescription to check both the number of arguments and the number of
parameters by default.

If we're intentionally trying to match variadic functions, allow specifying
arguments and parameters separately (possibly omitting any of them).
For now we only have one CallDescription which would make use of those,
namely __builtin_va_start itself.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67019

llvm-svn: 371256

show more ...

[Clang] Migrate llvm::make_unique to std::make_unique

Now that we've moved to C++14, we no longer need the llvm::make_unique
implementation from STLExtras.h. This patch is a mechanical replacement
o

[Clang] Migrate llvm::make_unique to std::make_unique

Now that we've moved to C++14, we no longer need the llvm::make_unique
implementation from STLExtras.h. This patch is a mechanical replacement
of (hopefully) all the llvm::make_unique instances across the monorepo.

Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66259

llvm-svn: 368942

show more ...

[analyzer][NFC] Refactoring BugReporter.cpp P3.: std::shared_pointer<PathDiagnosticPiece> -> PathDiagnosticPieceRef

find clang/ -type f -exec sed -i 's/std::shared_ptr<PathDiagnosticPiece>/PathDiagn

[analyzer][NFC] Refactoring BugReporter.cpp P3.: std::shared_pointer<PathDiagnosticPiece> -> PathDiagnosticPieceRef

find clang/ -type f -exec sed -i 's/std::shared_ptr<PathDiagnosticPiece>/PathDiagnosticPieceRef/g' {} \;
git diff -U3 --no-color HEAD^ | clang-format-diff-6.0 -p1 -i

Just as C++ is meant to be refactored, right?

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65381

llvm-svn: 368717

show more ...

[analyzer] Add CheckerManager::getChecker, make sure that a registry function registers no more than 1 checker

This patch effectively fixes the almost decade old checker naming issue.
The solution i

[analyzer] Add CheckerManager::getChecker, make sure that a registry function registers no more than 1 checker

This patch effectively fixes the almost decade old checker naming issue.
The solution is to assert when CheckerManager::getChecker is called on an
unregistered checker, and assert when CheckerManager::registerChecker is called
on a checker that is already registered.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55429

llvm-svn: 352292

show more ...

[analyzer] Reimplement dependencies between checkers

Unfortunately, up until now, the fact that certain checkers depended on one
another was known, but how these actually unfolded was hidden deep wi

[analyzer] Reimplement dependencies between checkers

Unfortunately, up until now, the fact that certain checkers depended on one
another was known, but how these actually unfolded was hidden deep within the
implementation. For example, many checkers (like RetainCount, Malloc or CString)
modelled a certain functionality, and exposed certain reportable bug types to
the user. For example, while MallocChecker models many many different types of
memory handling, the actual "unix.MallocChecker" checker the user was exposed to
was merely and option to this modeling part.

Other than this being an ugly mess, this issue made resolving the checker naming
issue almost impossible. (The checker naming issue being that if a checker
registered more than one checker within its registry function, both checker
object recieved the same name) Also, if the user explicitly disabled a checker
that was a dependency of another that _was_ explicitly enabled, it implicitly,
without "telling" the user, reenabled it.

Clearly, changing this to a well structured, declarative form, where the
handling of dependencies are done on a higher level is very much preferred.

This patch, among the detailed things later, makes checkers declare their
dependencies within the TableGen file Checkers.td, and exposes the same
functionality to plugins and statically linked non-generated checkers through
CheckerRegistry::addDependency. CheckerRegistry now resolves these dependencies,
makes sure that checkers are added to CheckerManager in the correct order,
and makes sure that if a dependency is disabled, so will be every checker that
depends on it.

In detail:

* Add a new field to the Checker class in CheckerBase.td called Dependencies,
which is a list of Checkers.
* Move unix checkers before cplusplus, as there is no forward declaration in
tblgen :/
* Add the following new checkers:
- StackAddrEscapeBase
- StackAddrEscapeBase
- CStringModeling
- DynamicMemoryModeling (base of the MallocChecker family)
- IteratorModeling (base of the IteratorChecker family)
- ValistBase
- SecuritySyntaxChecker (base of bcmp, bcopy, etc...)
- NSOrCFErrorDerefChecker (base of NSErrorChecker and CFErrorChecker)
- IvarInvalidationModeling (base of IvarInvalidation checker family)
- RetainCountBase (base of RetainCount and OSObjectRetainCount)
* Clear up and registry functions in MallocChecker, happily remove old FIXMEs.
* Add a new addDependency function to CheckerRegistry.
* Neatly format RUN lines in files I looked at while debugging.

Big thanks to Artem Degrachev for all the guidance through this project!

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54438

llvm-svn: 352287

show more ...

[analyzer] Supply all checkers with a shouldRegister function

Introduce the boolean ento::shouldRegister##CHECKERNAME(const LangOptions &LO)
function very similarly to ento::register##CHECKERNAME. T

[analyzer] Supply all checkers with a shouldRegister function

Introduce the boolean ento::shouldRegister##CHECKERNAME(const LangOptions &LO)
function very similarly to ento::register##CHECKERNAME. This will force every
checker to implement this function, but maybe it isn't that bad: I saw a lot of
ObjC or C++ specific checkers that should probably not register themselves based
on some LangOptions (mine too), but they do anyways.

A big benefit of this is that all registry functions now register their checker,
once it is called, registration is guaranteed.

This patch is a part of a greater effort to reinvent checker registration, more
info here: D54438#1315953

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55424

llvm-svn: 352277

show more ...

Update the file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the ne

Update the file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.

Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.

llvm-svn: 351636

show more ...

Revert "Fix failing MSan bots"

This reverts commit 2cedaaef383d8d6142046074ffebc2bb5a914778.

Revert with a fix.

llvm-svn: 351575

Fix failing MSan bots

Revert r351508-351514, this block of changes introduced a consistent
MSan failure on the sanitizer bots.

llvm-svn: 351528

[analyzer] Extend BugType constructor to accept "SuppressOnSink" as a parameter

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56884

llvm-svn: 351510

[analyzer][NFC] Move CheckerRegistry from the Core directory to Frontend

ClangCheckerRegistry is a very non-obvious, poorly documented, weird concept.
It derives from CheckerRegistry, and is placed

[analyzer][NFC] Move CheckerRegistry from the Core directory to Frontend

ClangCheckerRegistry is a very non-obvious, poorly documented, weird concept.
It derives from CheckerRegistry, and is placed in lib/StaticAnalyzer/Frontend,
whereas it's base is located in lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core. It was, from what I can
imagine, used to circumvent the problem that the registry functions of the
checkers are located in the clangStaticAnalyzerCheckers library, but that
library depends on clangStaticAnalyzerCore. However, clangStaticAnalyzerFrontend
depends on both of those libraries.

One can make the observation however, that CheckerRegistry has no place in Core,
it isn't used there at all! The only place where it is used is Frontend, which
is where it ultimately belongs.

This move implies that since
include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ClangCheckers.h only contained a single function:

class CheckerRegistry;

void registerBuiltinCheckers(CheckerRegistry &registry);

it had to re purposed, as CheckerRegistry is no longer available to
clangStaticAnalyzerCheckers. It was renamed to BuiltinCheckerRegistration.h,
which actually describes it a lot better -- it does not contain the registration
functions for checkers, but only those generated by the tblgen files.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54436

llvm-svn: 349275

show more ...

[analyzer] [NFC] Remove unused parameters, as found by -Wunused-parameter

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52640

llvm-svn: 343353

[analyzer] Do not run visitors until the fixpoint, run only once.

In the current implementation, we run visitors until the fixed point is
reached.
That is, if a visitor adds another visitor, the cur

[analyzer] Do not run visitors until the fixpoint, run only once.

In the current implementation, we run visitors until the fixed point is
reached.
That is, if a visitor adds another visitor, the currently processed path
is destroyed, all diagnostics is discarded, and it is regenerated again,
until it's no longer modified.
This pattern has a few negative implications:

- This loop does not even guarantee to terminate.
E.g. just imagine two visitors bouncing a diagnostics around.
- Performance-wise, e.g. for sqlite3 all visitors are being re-run at
least 10 times for some bugs.
We have already seen a few reports where it leads to timeouts.
- If we want to add more computationally intense visitors, this will
become worse.
- From architectural standpoint, the current layout requires copying
visitors, which is conceptually wrong, and can be annoying (e.g. no
unique_ptr on visitors allowed).

The proposed change is a much simpler architecture: the outer loop
processes nodes upwards, and whenever the visitor is added it only
processes current nodes and above, thus guaranteeing termination.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47856

llvm-svn: 335666

show more ...

[analyzer] Remove the unused method declaration in `ValistChecker.cpp`.

Summary: `getVariableNameFromRegion()` seems useless.

Reviewers: xazax.hun, george.karpenkov

Reviewed By: xazax.hun

Subscri

[analyzer] Remove the unused method declaration in `ValistChecker.cpp`.

Summary: `getVariableNameFromRegion()` seems useless.

Reviewers: xazax.hun, george.karpenkov

Reviewed By: xazax.hun

Subscribers: szepet, rnkovacs, a.sidorin, cfe-commits, MTC

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45081

llvm-svn: 328860

show more ...

[analyzer] introduce getSVal(Stmt *) helper on ExplodedNode, make sure the helper is used consistently

In most cases using
`N->getState()->getSVal(E, N->getLocationContext())`
is ugly, verbose, and

[analyzer] introduce getSVal(Stmt *) helper on ExplodedNode, make sure the helper is used consistently

In most cases using
`N->getState()->getSVal(E, N->getLocationContext())`
is ugly, verbose, and also opens up more surface area for bugs if an
inconsistent location context is used.

This patch introduces a helper on an exploded node, and ensures
consistent usage of either `ExplodedNode::getSVal` or
`CheckContext::getSVal` across the codebase.
As a result, a large number of redundant lines is removed.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42155

llvm-svn: 322753

show more ...

[analyzer] Fix some check's output plist not containing the check name

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41538

llvm-svn: 321933

[analyzer] Fix memory error bug category capitalization.

It was written as "Memory Error" in most places and as "Memory error" in a few
other places, however it is the latter that is more consistent

[analyzer] Fix memory error bug category capitalization.

It was written as "Memory Error" in most places and as "Memory error" in a few
other places, however it is the latter that is more consistent with
other categories (such as "Logic error").

rdar://problem/31718115

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32702

llvm-svn: 302016

show more ...