Summary:
A domain should not definite its initial state, since distinct users of the domain may want to choose different initial values.
For example, one user might want to bind all of the formals to some special values, and one user might want the initial domain to be an empty map
This diff makes this distinction clear in the types by (a) requiring the initial state to be passed to the abstract interpreter and (b) lifting the requirement that abstract domains define `initial`.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D4359629
fbshipit-source-id: cbcee28
Summary:
Maintain an "ownership" set of access paths that hold locally allocated memory that has not escaped.
This memory is owned by the current procedure, so modifying it outside of synchronization is safe.
If an owned access path does escape to another procedure, we remove it from the ownership set.
Reviewed By: peterogithub
Differential Revision: D4320034
fbshipit-source-id: 64f9169
Summary: This is required to maintain a set of owned access paths in a subsequent diff.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D4318859
fbshipit-source-id: bd1a9fa
Summary: We're about to add another element to the abstract domain, and a 4-tuple is a bit too cumbersome to work with.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D4315292
fbshipit-source-id: d04699f
Summary: We'll eventually want fancy interprocedural traces. This diff adds the required boilerplate for this and adds the line number of each access to the error message. Real traces will come in a follow-up
Reviewed By: peterogithub
Differential Revision: D4251985
fbshipit-source-id: c9d9823
Summary:
Before, we were using a set domain of strings to model a boolean domain.
An explicit boolean domain makes it a bit clear what's going on.
There are two things to note here:
(1) This actually changed the semantics from the old set domain. The set domain wouldn't warn if the lock is held on only one side of a branch, which isn't what we want.
(2) We can't actually test this because the modeling for `Lock.lock()` etc doesn't work :(.
The reason is that the models (which do things like adding attributes for `Lock.lock`) are analyzed for Infer, but not for the checkers.
We'll have to add separate models for thread safety.
Reviewed By: peterogithub
Differential Revision: D4242487
fbshipit-source-id: 9fc599d
Summary: Refactoring to make thread safety checker interpocedural. This should not change funcitonality, and will only set things up for making the interprocedural part more serious.
Reviewed By: sblackshear
Differential Revision: D4124316
fbshipit-source-id: 6721953
Sam Blackshear
Josh Berdine
Peter O'Hearn