Summary: Impurity traces are quite big due to recording values histories. Let's simplify the traces by removing pulse's value histories.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D20362149
fbshipit-source-id: 8a2a6115e
Summary:
Currently, impurity analysis is oblivious to skipped functions which might e.g. return a non-deterministic value, write to memory or have some other side-effect. This diff fixes that by relying on Pulse's skipped functions to determine impurity. Any unknown function which is not modeled to be pure is assumed to be impure.
This is a heuristic. We could have assumed them to be pure by default as well.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D19428514
fbshipit-source-id: 82efe04f9
Summary:
This gets rid of false positives when something invalid (eg null) is
passed by reference to an initialisation function. Havoc'ing what the
contents of the pointer to results in being optimistic about said
contents in the future.
Also surprisingly gets rid of some FNs (which means it can also
introduce FPs) in the `std::atomic` tests because a path condition
becomes feasible with havoc'ing.
There's a slight refinement possible where we don't havoc pointers to
const but that's more involved and left as future work.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D18726203
fbshipit-source-id: 264b5daeb
Summary:
Previously, we considered a function which modifies its parameters to be impure even though it might not be modifying the underlying value. This resulted in FPs like the following program in Java:
```
void fresh_pure(int[] a) {
a = new int[1];
}
```
Similarly, in C++, we considered the following program as impure because it was writing to `s`:
```
Simple* reassign_pure(Simple* s) {
s = new Simple{2};
return s;
}
```
This diff fixes that issue by starting the check for address equivalnce in pre-post not directly from the addresses of the stack variables, but from the addresses pointed to by these stack variables. That means, we only consider things to be impure if the actual values pointed by the parameters change.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D18113846
fbshipit-source-id: 3d7c712f3
Summary:
bigmacro_bender
There are 3 ways pulse tracks history. This is at least one too many. So
far, we have:
1. "histories": a humble list of "events" like "assigned here", "returned from call", ...
2. "interproc actions": a structured nesting of calls with a final "action", eg "f calls g calls h which does blah"
3. "traces", which combine one history with one interproc action
This diff gets rid of interproc actions and makes histories include
"nested" callee histories too. This allows pulse to track and display
how a value got assigned across function calls.
Traces are now more powerful and interleave histories and interproc
actions. This allows pulse to track how a value is fed into an action,
for instance performed in callee, which itself creates some more
(potentially now interprocedural) history before going to the next step
of the action (either another call or the action itself).
This gives much better traces, and some examples are added to showcase
this.
There are a lot of changes when applying summaries to keep track of
histories more accurately than was done before, but also a few
simplifications that give additional evidence that this is the right
concept.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D17908942
fbshipit-source-id: 3b62eaf78
Summary:
Instead of a string argument named `~str` pass `Formal | Global` and let
`add_to_errlog` figure out how to print it.
Reviewed By: ezgicicek
Differential Revision: D17907657
fbshipit-source-id: ed09aab72
Summary: If we have no pulse summary (most likely caused by pulse finding a legit issue with the code), let's consider the function as impure.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D17906016
fbshipit-source-id: 671d3e0ba
Summary:
Unfortunately it is very hard to predict when
`Typ.Procname.describe` will add `()` after the function name, so we
cannot make sure it is always there.
Right now we report clowny stuff like "error while calling `foo()()`",
which this change fixes.
Reviewed By: ezgicicek
Differential Revision: D17665470
fbshipit-source-id: ef290d9c0
Summary:
Introduce a new experimental checker (`--impurity`) that detects
impurity information, tracking which parameters and global variables
of a function are modified. The checker relies on Pulse to detect how
the state changes: it traverses the pre and post pairs starting from
the parameter/global variable and finds where the pre and post heaps
diverge. At diversion points, we expect to see WrittenTo/Invalid attributes
containing a trace of how the address was modified. We use these to
construct the trace of impurity.
This checker is a complement to the purity checker that exists mainly
for Java (and used for cost and loop-hoisting analyses). The aim of
this new experimental checker is to rely on Pulse's precise
memory treatment and come up with a more precise im(purity)
analysis. To distinguish the two checkers, we introduce a new issue
type `IMPURE_FUNCTION` that reports when a function is impure, rather
than when it is pure (as in the purity checker).
TODO:
- improve the analysis to rely on impurity information of external
library calls. Currently, all library calls are assumed to be nops,
hence pure.
- de-entangle Pulse reporting from analysis.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D17051567
fbshipit-source-id: 5e10afb4f
Ezgi Çiçek
Jules Villard