Summary: The models were too naive before since they invalidated the underlying array completely (copying C++'s push_back model), causing spurious vector invalidation issues in Java. This diff adds more reasonable models.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D21787543
fbshipit-source-id: a5a59ff69
Summary: We mistakenly invalidated the set element which causes spurious vector invalidation errors. Instead, we should modify it without any invalidation.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D21521943
fbshipit-source-id: 67963967e
Summary: Java's iterator models were wrong. This causes `VECTOR_INVALIDATION` errors in fbandroid projects. This diff aims to fix it by modeling Java iterators with a current pointer and an underlying collection array.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D21448322
fbshipit-source-id: 7d44354b5
Summary:
Replace horrible hack with ok hack.
The main difficulty in implementing the disjunctive domain is to avoid
the quadratic time complexity of executing the same disjuncts over and
over again when going around loops:
First time around a loop, assuming for example a single disjunct `d`:
```
[d]
loop body
[d1' \/ d2']
```
Second time around the same loop: the new pre will be the join of the
posts of predecessor nodes, so `old_pre \/ post(loop,old_pre)`, i.e.
`d \/ d1' \/ d2'`. Now we need to execute `loop body` again
*without running the symbolic execution of `d` again* (and the time after
that we'll want to not execute `d`, `d1'`, or `d2'`).
Horrible hack (before): Disjuncts have a boolean "visited" attached
that does its best to keep track of whether a given disjunct is old or
new. When executing a single *instruction* look at the flag and skip the
state if it's old. Of course we have no way to know for sure so it turns
out it was often wrongly re-executing old disjuncts. This was also
producing the wrong results over even simple loops: only the last
iteration would make it outside the loop for some reason. Overall, the
semantics were pretty untractable and shady at best.
New hack (this diff): only run instructions of a given *node* on
disjuncts that are not physically equal to the "pre" ones already in the
invariant map for the current node.
This gives the correct result over simple loops and a nice performance
improvement in general (probably the old heuristic was hitting the
quadratic bad case more often).
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D21154063
fbshipit-source-id: 5ee38c68c
Summary: Consider functions that simply exit as impure by extending the impurity domain with `AbstractDomain.BooleanOr` that signifies whether the program exited.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D20941628
fbshipit-source-id: 19bc90e66
Summary:
This diff lifts the `PulseAbductiveDomain.t` in `PulseExecutionState` by tracking whether the program continues the analysis normally or exits unusually (e.g. by calling `exit` or `throw`):
```
type exec_state =
| ContinueProgram of PulseAbductiveDomain.t (** represents the state at the program point *)
| ExitProgram of PulseAbductiveDomain.t
(** represents the state originating at exit/divergence. *)
```
Now, Pulse's actual domain is tracked by `PulseExecutionState` and as soon as we try to analyze an instruction at `ExitProgram`, we simply return its state.
The aim is to recover the state at the time of the exit, rather than simply ignoring them (i.e. returning empty disjuncts). This allows us to get rid of some FNs that we were not able to detect before. Moreover, it also allows the impurity analysis to be more precise since we will know how the state changed up to exit.
TODO:
- Impurity analysis needs to be improved to consider functions that simply exit as impure.
- The next goal is to handle error state similarly so that when pulse finds an error, we recover the state at the error location (and potentially continue to analyze?).
Disclaimer: currently, we handle throw statements like exit (as was the case before). However, this is not correct. Ideally, control flow from throw nodes follows catch nodes rather than exiting the program entirely.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D20791747
fbshipit-source-id: df9e5445a
Summary:
- Model `System.exit()` as early_exit and add a test
- Tweak message of methods that are impure due to having no pulse summary (and add a test)
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D20668979
fbshipit-source-id: 6b5589aae
Summary:
As exemplified by added tests, pulse computes an empty summary (with 0 disjuncts) whenever it discovers a contradiction which might be caused by:
- discovering aliasing in memory
- widening limited number of times in loops and concluding that loop exit conditions are never taken
However, AFAIU, it is not possible to have a function with 0 disjunct apart from such anomalities. Even a function which does nothing like `void foo(){}` has 1 disjuncts:
```
Pulse: 1 pre/post(s)
#0: PRE:
{ roots={ };
mem ={ };
attrs={ };}
POST:
{ roots={ };
mem ={ };
attrs={ };}
SKIPPED_CALLS: { }
```
The aim of this diff is to consider functions with 0 disjuncts as **impure** because most often such cases are impure, rather than actually pure.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D20619504
fbshipit-source-id: 3a8502c90
Summary:
- Add more naive pulse models for:
- `System.arraycopy`
- `StringBuilder.setLength`
- `StringBuilder.delete`
- Model the following as pure
- `SparseArrayCompat.valueAt`
- `File.get...`
- Add a nice test
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D20513397
fbshipit-source-id: 6d412d13a
Summary:
This diff naively models the following as `StdVector.push_back`:
- `StringBuilder.append`
- `String.replace`
- `Queue.poll`
It also adds a FN test for `Iterator.next`.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D20469786
fbshipit-source-id: 2d8e8d117
Summary:
Impurity domain was tracking all changes to variables (with a list of traces that containing all write/invalid accesses). This results in having long traces with multiple access events for the same variable. For instance,
```
void swap_impure(int[] array, int i, int j) {
int tmp = array[i];
array[i] = array[j]; \\ included in the trace
array[j] = tmp; \\ included in the trace
}
```
here we recorded both array accesses.
This diff changes the domain to include accesses so that we only keep track of a single trace per access. Array accesses are only recorded once.
Note that we want to record all unique accesses, not just the first one, because impurity will be used for hoisting/cost where we will invalidate impure arguments and consider all the rest as not changing.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D20385745
fbshipit-source-id: d3647dad3
Summary:
D20362149 missed
- to pass the optional argument `include_value_history` to the recursive call in `PulseTrace.add_to_errlog`.
- to set `include_value_history=false` for skipped calls.
This diff fixes these issues.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D20385604
fbshipit-source-id: 176e4d010
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: We forgot to take skipped calls into account for state comparison. This diff fixes that.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D20282739
fbshipit-source-id: 7b4d84bb0
Summary:
Pulse has an extra invalidation mechanism (introduced in D18726203) to prevent something invalid (e.g. `null`) to be passed by reference to an initialisation function. Therefore, it havocs formals passed by reference to skipped functions. However, I don't think this makes sense in Java. So, let's turn it off.
A nice consequence of this is that in impurity analysis, we do not consider functions that call skipped library calls with object arguments as writing to their formals.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D19697110
fbshipit-source-id: 6e3a71f2a
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: Pulse doesn't care about exceptions yet. With Exceptional CFG, java analysis takes a lot of time due to having many disjuncts. Let's use Normal CFG for now.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D19194479
fbshipit-source-id: f94bb6078
Summary:
In order to improve the impurity analysis, this diff adds models for
- `hasNext()` and - `Object.equals()` modeled as returning a non-deterministic value (havoc_id)
- `next()` modeled as `StdVector.get` with a fresh index
- `iterator` modeled as just returning the underlying list
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D19177392
fbshipit-source-id: 0babb037a
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:
We consider Java collections to be like c++ std::vectors and add models for
- `Collections.get(..)`
- `__cast`
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D18449607
fbshipit-source-id: 448206c84
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:
Let's add basic Java support to impurity checker. Since impurity checker relies on pulse, we need to add Java with Pulse callback as well. Pulse doesn't officially support Java yet, but we can enable it for impurity checker for now.
Many Java primitives/operations are not yet modeled (such as creation of new objects, support for collections etc.). Still, it is good to run impurity checker on the existing tests of the purity checker. Also, it is nice to see that we can identify most of the impure functions correctly in the purity dir. There are a lot of FNs though.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D17906237
fbshipit-source-id: 15308d285
Ezgi Çiçek
Jules Villard