Summary: Rather than having three separate annotations related to checking/assuming thread-safety, let's just have one annotation instead.
Reviewed By: peterogithub
Differential Revision: D4605258
fbshipit-source-id: 17c935b
Summary: distinguish writes via method calls (e.g., add) from writes via assignment in the error messages
Reviewed By: sblackshear
Differential Revision: D4611748
fbshipit-source-id: 7594d3b
Summary: Report at most one read/write race or unprotected write per access path per method
Reviewed By: sblackshear, jvillard
Differential Revision: D4590815
fbshipit-source-id: 3c3a9d9
Summary:
To address a common source of false positives observed in D4494901.
We don't do anything with `release` yet, but can model it as releasing ownership in the future if we want to enforce correct usage of `SynchronizedPool`'s.
Reviewed By: peterogithub
Differential Revision: D4593635
fbshipit-source-id: 621e937
Summary: Reports on reads that have one or more conflicting writes. When you report, say which other methods race with it.
Reviewed By: sblackshear
Differential Revision: D4538793
fbshipit-source-id: 47ce700
Summary: Thread-local variables can't be shared between threads, so it's safe to mutate them outside of synchronization
Reviewed By: jeremydubreil
Differential Revision: D4568316
fbshipit-source-id: 0634cad
Summary:
I couldn't figure out why, but from within an infer release the traces we get
for this test are different than the expected ones. This is even consistent
across osx and linux.
In order to restore sanity, let's just hide this incomprehensible fact. Let's
come back to it if more tests exhibit this, maybe traces are not guaranteed to
be exactly the same across runs.
Reviewed By: sblackshear
Differential Revision: D4559405
fbshipit-source-id: dd88c59
Summary: Should stop us from reporting on benign races of fields that are caching resources.
Reviewed By: peterogithub
Differential Revision: D4538037
fbshipit-source-id: 15236b4
Summary: This annotation can then be used to suppress the warnings on non-android Java projects.
Reviewed By: sblackshear
Differential Revision: D4544858
fbshipit-source-id: 8a0b8fa
Summary:
The Java models for resources are way to complex. The main issue I am facing with these models is that small changes in the analysis can affect the generation of the models in some weird ways. For instance, I get different specs for some of the models between my devserver and my devvm, which seems to be mostly related with the backend treatment of `instanceof`.
The objective here is to simplify the models as much as possible in order to:
1) make debugging regressions easier
2) get simpler specs and less modeled methods shipped in `models.jar`
Reviewed By: sblackshear
Differential Revision: D4536115
fbshipit-source-id: 577183a
Summary: Better documentation, and could perhaps be checked instead of trusted later if the analysis understands threads better.
Reviewed By: jaegs
Differential Revision: D4537463
fbshipit-source-id: 4323c78
Summary: In some cases where a function is called directly on a formal (e.g, `def foo(o) { callSomething(o) }`, we were failing to propagate the footprint trace to the caller.
Reviewed By: jeremydubreil
Differential Revision: D4502404
fbshipit-source-id: d4d632f
Summary: This case was already working but there was no tests for it
Reviewed By: sblackshear
Differential Revision: D4529473
fbshipit-source-id: ca3ff02
Summary: This will be important for maintaining ownership of `View`'s, which involve a lot of casting.
Reviewed By: peterogithub
Differential Revision: D4520441
fbshipit-source-id: fdef226
Summary:
Previously, we would lose track of ownership in code like
```
Obj owned = new Obj();
Obj stillOwned = id(owned); // would lose ownership here
stillOwned.f = ... // would report false alarm here
```
This diff partially addresses the problem by adding a notion of "unconditional" (always owned) or "conditional" (owned if some formal at index i is owned) ownership.
Now we can handle simple examples like the one above.
I say "partially" because we still can't handle cases where there are different reasons for conditional ownership, such as
```
oneOrTwo(Obj o1, Obj o2) { if (*) return o1; else return o2; } // we won't understand that this maintains ownership if both formals are owned
Obj stillOwned = oneOrTwo(owned1, owned2);
stillOwned.f = ... // we'll report a false alarm here
```
This can be addressed in the future, but will require slightly more work
Reviewed By: peterogithub
Differential Revision: D4520069
fbshipit-source-id: 99c7418
Summary: This fixes a wrong level of indirection when performing the type substitution.
Reviewed By: sblackshear
Differential Revision: D4521008
fbshipit-source-id: 7324ea6
Summary:
This fixes false positives we had in fields written by callees of a constructor (see new E2E test).
This is also a bit cleaner than what we did before; instead of special-casing constructors, we just use the existing ownership concept.
Reviewed By: peterogithub
Differential Revision: D4505161
fbshipit-source-id: a739ebc
Summary:
Constants are always "owned" in the sense that no one can mutate them.
In code like
```
Obj getX(boolean b) {
if (b) {
return null;
}
return new Obj();
}
```
, we need to understand this in order to infer that the returned value is owned.
This should fix a few FP's that I've seen.
Reviewed By: peterogithub
Differential Revision: D4485452
fbshipit-source-id: beae15b
Summary: This should fix the issue with broken invariants when the method specialization on pointer ends up doing a substitution on non pointer types
Reviewed By: sblackshear
Differential Revision: D4487232
fbshipit-source-id: f3fce84
Summary: The method `junit.framework.TestCase.setUp()` is always run before the other methods by the JUnit testing framework. So the method act as a class initializer.
Reviewed By: sblackshear
Differential Revision: D4487371
fbshipit-source-id: 1998801
Summary: Just adding some more test cases on how Infer handles dynamic dispatch.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D4486529
fbshipit-source-id: d90ef42
Summary:
This diff adds a set of access paths holding a value returned from a method annotated with Functional to the domain.
If a "functional" value is written to a field, we won't count that right as an unprotected access.
The idea is to be able to use the Functional annotation to get rid of benign race false positive, such as:
```
Functional T iAlwaysReturnTheSameThing();
T mCache;
T memoizedGetter() {
if (mCache == null) {
mCache = iAlwaysReturnTheSameThing();
}
return mCache;
}
```
Although there is a write-write race on `mCache`, we don't care because it will be assigned to the same value regardless of which writer wins.
Reviewed By: peterogithub
Differential Revision: D4476492
fbshipit-source-id: cfa5dfc
Summary:
We warn on unsafe accesses to fields that occur in a public method (or are reachable from a public method).
We ought not to consider VisibleForTesting methods as public, since they are only public for testing purposes.
Reviewed By: peterogithub
Differential Revision: D4477648
fbshipit-source-id: 5f58914
Summary: Simple model for List methods that write to the collection.
Reviewed By: peterogithub
Differential Revision: D4453381
fbshipit-source-id: 19edc51
Summary:
Previously, we would correctly be silent on code like `x = new T(); x.f = ...`, but would wrongly warn on code like `x = makeT(); x.f = ...`.
The reason is that we only allowed ownership through direct allocation.
This diff adds a boolean that specifies whether the return value is owned as part of the summary.
This allows us to correctly handle many common cases of (transitively) returning a freshly allocated object, but still won't work for understanding that ownership is maintained in examples like
`x = new T(); y = id(x); y.f = ...`.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D4456864
fbshipit-source-id: b5eec02
Summary:
Eradicate currently considers a field initialized if it's simply accessed (not written to),
or initialized with another initialized field.
This fixes the issue.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D4449541
fbshipit-source-id: 06265a8
Summary:
If we have code like
```
o.setF(source())
sink(o)
```
and `setF` is an unknown method, we probably want to report.
Reviewed By: jeremydubreil, mburman
Differential Revision: D4438896
fbshipit-source-id: 5edd204
Sam Blackshear
Peter O'Hearn
Jules Villard
Jeremy Dubreil
Cristiano Calcagno