NoQ added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/cert/StrChecker.cpp:124 + if (const SymbolicRegion *SR = DestMR->getSymbolicBase()) + if (const Expr *SizeExpr = getDynamicSizeExpr(C.getState(), SR)) + return exprToStr(SizeExpr, C); ---------------- Charusso wrote: > Charusso wrote: > > NoQ wrote: > > > Again, you will have to highlight the allocation site with a note. > > > Therefore you will have to write a bug visitor that traverses the size > > > expression at some point (or, equivalently, a note tag when the size > > > expression is evaluated). Therefore you don't need to store the > > > expression in the program state. > > Yes, you have pointed out the necessary visitor, but it needs more thinking. > > > > I have a memory region which could be any kind of "memory block region" > > therefore I have no idea where is the size expression. We are supporting > > ~20 different allocations, which is nothing compared to the wild with the > > not so uncommon 5+ parameter allocators. Therefore I still do not want to > > reverse engineer a small MallocChecker + ExprEngine + > > BuiltinFunctionChecker inside my checker. They provide the necessary > > `DynamicSizeInfo` easily, which could be used in at least 4 checkers at the > > moment (which I have pointed out earlier in D68725). > > > > If I have the size expression in the dynamic size map, and I can clearly > > point out the destination buffer, it is a lot more simplified to traverse > > the graph where the buffer and its size comes from. > Well, you really do not want to store `SizeExpr` of `malloc(SizeExpr)` and > you are right I will have to traverse from it to see whether the `SizeExpr` > is ambiguous or not, where it comes from. > > I want to rely on the `trackExpressionValue()` as the `SizeExpr` is available > by `getDynamicSizeExpr()`, so it is one or two lines of code. > > Would you create your own switch-case to see where is the size expression > goes in the allocation and use `trackExpressionValue()` on it? So that you do > not store information in the global state which results in better run-time / > less memory. > > At first I really wanted to model `malloc()` and `realloc()` and stuff, then > I realized the `MallocChecker` provides every information I need. Would it be > a better idea to create my own tiny `MallocChecker` inside my checker which > does nothing but marks the size expression being interesting with `NoteTags`? > > Also I am thinking of a switch-case on the `DefinedOrUnknownSVal Size` which > somewhere has an expression inside it which I could `trackExpressionValue()` > on. > > Basically we are missing the rules what to use and I have picked the easiest > solution. Could you share please which would be the right direction for such > a simple task? > I want to rely on the `trackExpressionValue()` as the `SizeExpr` is available > by `getDynamicSizeExpr()`, so it is one or two lines of code. This won't work. `trackExpressionValue()` can only track an active expression (that has, or at least should have, a value in the bug-node's environment). You'll have to make a visitor or a note tag. You can either make your own visitor (which will detect the node in which the extent information becomes present), or convert `MallocChecker` to use note tags and then inter-operate with those tags (though the interestingness map - "i mark the symbol as interesting so i'm interested in highlighting the allocation site" - or a similar mechanism). The second approach is more work because no such interoperation has ever been implemented yet, but it should be pretty rewarding for the future. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
