CPP: IR weirdness with unexpected result for `getUnconvertedResultExpression`
Dieses Issue hat noch niemand übernommen.
Bewertung
- Schwierigkeit
- 4/5
- Geschätzter Aufwand
- 3-5 Tage
- Anfängerfreundlichkeit
- 45/100
Rechercherichtung
Beginne mit der Verwendung von getUnconvertedResultExpression in der mitgelieferten CodeQL-Abfrage und dem Testfall test_direct_bool_context. Vergleiche die IR- und Abfrageergebnisse für die Bedingungen in Zeile 28 und Zeile 29 und überprüfe anschließend, dass der Testfall für jede erwartete Zeile genau eine Warnung meldet, ohne das Duplikat in Zeile 28.
Vom Indexierungsmodell aus dem Issue-Text verfasst.
Beschreibung
(Kind of related to #21241 and #21240)
While testing my query, I noticed that I had a duplicate result for line 28 (if (&x)).
(Only visible when looking at the .expected file of my test output)
The IR supposedly had two address-of instruction at that line.
I don't understand why and looking at the IR the only difference between line 28 and 29 is that there is one CompareNE instruction in the one case and one CompareEQ instruction in the other case (as expected).
| twice!NonSSA: NonSSA: 8:ResultCopy | AddressOfNullCheck.c:28:9
| twice!NonSSA: NonSSA: 7:ValCondCondCompare | AddressOfNullCheck.c:28:9
| twice!NonSSA: NonSSA: 15:ResultCopy | AddressOfNullCheck.c:29:10
IR graph dump query
/**
* @name ff
* @description aa
* @kind graph
* @id aaaaa
* @tags security
*/
import cpp
import semmle.code.cpp.ir.IR
import semmle.code.cpp.ir.PrintIR
import semmle.code.cpp.Declaration
private class Foo extends PrintIRConfiguration {
override predicate shouldPrintDeclaration(Declaration decl) {
decl.(Function).getName() = "test_direct_bool_context"
}
}
Dot file
digraph {
compound=true;
subgraph cluster_0 {
0[shape=point, width=0];
"label"="void test_direct_bool_context()";
subgraph cluster_1 {
1[shape=point, width=0];
"label"="Block 0";
2["label"="v24_1(void) = EnterFunction : "; ];
3["label"="m24_2(unknown) = AliasedDefinition : "; ];
4["label"="m24_3(unknown) = InitializeNonLocal : "; ];
5["label"="m24_4(unknown) = Chi : total:m24_2, partial:m24_3"; ];
6["label"="r25_1(glval<int>) = VariableAddress[x] : "; ];
7["label"="m25_2(int) = Uninitialized[x] : &:r25_1"; ];
8["label"="r28_1(glval<int>) = VariableAddress[x] : "; ];
9["label"="r28_2(int *) = CopyValue : r28_1"; ];
10["label"="r28_3(int *) = Constant[0] : "; ];
11["label"="r28_4(bool) = CompareNE : r28_2, r28_3"; ];
12["label"="v28_5(void) = ConditionalBranch : r28_4"; ];
}
subgraph cluster_13 {
13[shape=point, width=0];
"label"="Block 1";
14["label"="v28_6(void) = NoOp : "; ];
}
subgraph cluster_15 {
15[shape=point, width=0];
"label"="Block 2";
16["label"="r29_1(glval<int>) = VariableAddress[x] : "; ];
17["label"="r29_2(int *) = CopyValue : r29_1"; ];
18["label"="r29_3(int *) = Constant[0] : "; ];
19["label"="r29_4(bool) = CompareEQ : r29_2, r29_3"; ];
20["label"="v29_5(void) = ConditionalBranch : r29_4"; ];
}
subgraph cluster_21 {
21[shape=point, width=0];
"label"="Block 3";
22["label"="v29_6(void) = NoOp : "; ];
}
subgraph cluster_23 {
23[shape=point, width=0];
"label"="Block 4";
24["label"="v30_1(void) = NoOp : "; ];
25["label"="v24_5(void) = ReturnVoid : "; ];
26["label"="v24_6(void) = AliasedUse : m24_3"; ];
27["label"="v24_7(void) = ExitFunction : "; ];
}
}
13 -> 15["label"="Goto"; "ltail"="cluster_13"; "lhead"="cluster_15"; ];
21 -> 23["label"="Goto"; "ltail"="cluster_21"; "lhead"="cluster_23"; ];
1 -> 15["label"="False"; "ltail"="cluster_1"; "lhead"="cluster_15"; ];
15 -> 23["label"="False"; "ltail"="cluster_15"; "lhead"="cluster_23"; ];
1 -> 13["label"="True"; "ltail"="cluster_1"; "lhead"="cluster_13"; ];
15 -> 21["label"="True"; "ltail"="cluster_15"; "lhead"="cluster_21"; ];
}
Query
/**
* @name Suspicious check on address-of expression
* @description Taking the address of a valid object always produces a non-NULL
* pointer, so checking the result against NULL is either redundant
* or indicates a bug where a different check was intended.
* @kind problem
* @problem.severity warning
* @precision high
* @id asymmetric-research/suspicious-address-of-null-check
* @tags reliability
* correctness
* readability
*/
import cpp
import semmle.code.cpp.controlflow.Guards
/**
* Technically, we'd ignore cases where we do something like &foo->first_field (where foo is a pointer)
* this is because if foo is NULL, the expression could actually evaluate to NULL.
* However, it doesn't seem likely that anyone would write code like that intentionally
* and it's also undefined behavior to dereference a NULL pointer anyway.
*/
class ValidAddressOfExpr extends AddressOfExpr { }
from Instruction source
where
source.getUnconvertedResultExpression() instanceof ValidAddressOfExpr and
source.getLocation().getStartLine() = [28, 29]
select source, "twice!" + source.getUniqueId()
Testcase
#define NULL ((void*)0)
struct foo {
int a;
long b;
};
typedef struct foo foo_t;
int global_var;
int global_array[10];
// Test direct comparisons with local variables
void test_direct_comparison_local(void) {
int x;
// Direct comparison of address-of with NULL - should alert
if (&x == NULL) {} // $ Alert
if (&x != NULL) {} // $ Alert
if (NULL == &x) {} // $ Alert
if (0 == &x) {} // $ Alert
}
// Test direct boolean context with local variables
void test_direct_bool_context(void) {
int x;
// Direct use in boolean context - should alert
if (&x) {} // $ Alert DUPLICATE HERE
if (!&x) {} // $ Alert
}
- Vorherrschende Sprache
- CodeQL
- Sterne
- 10.1k
- Forks
- 2.1k
- Ø Merge
- 2 T. 16 Std.
- Gemergte PRs (30 T.)
- 143
Beitragsleitfaden
Erste Schritte
- Lesen Sie das ganze Issue und danach den Beitragsleitfaden des Projekts.
- Schreiben Sie ins Issue, dass Sie es übernehmen — das erspart doppelte Arbeit.
- Forken Sie das Repository und arbeiten Sie in einem Branch.
- Öffnen Sie einen Pull Request, der die Issue-Nummer nennt.
Mehr aus github/codeql
-
agentic-workflows
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 70/100
-
false-positive javascript
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 84/100
-
C#: cs/simplifiable-boolean-expression false positive on Nullable<bool> compared with a literal Offen
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 82/100
-
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 78/100
-
false-positive
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 70/100
Ähnliche Issues
-
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 75/100
-
internal.h中,漏掉了1个定义。 Offen
Schwierigkeit 1/5 Unter einer Stunde Anfängerfreundlichkeit 95/100
-
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 88/100
-
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 88/100
-
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 88/100
oxc-project/oxc#26944 ·