Summary:
This is step further simplify the code to avoid cases where the summary of the procedure being analyzed can exist in two different versions:
# one version is the summary passed as parameter to every checker
# the other is a copy of the summary in the in-memory specs table
This diff implements:
# the analysis always run through the `Ondemand` module (was already the case before)
# the summary of the procedure being analyzed is created at the beginning of the on-demand analysis call
# all the checkers run in sequence, update their respective part of the payload and log errors to the error table
# the summary is store at the end of the on-demand analysis call
Reviewed By: sblackshear
Differential Revision: D4787414
fbshipit-source-id: 2d115c9
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
Summary:
Let's introduce some concepts. A "known unknown" function is one for which no Java code exists (e.g., `native`, `abstract`, and `interface methods`). An "unknown unknown" function is one for which Java code may or may not exist, but we don't have the code or we choose not to analyze it (e.g., non-modeled methods from the core Java or Android libraries).
Previously, Quandary handled both known unknowns and unknown unknowns by propagating taint from the parameters of the unknown function to its return value. It turns out that it is really expensive to do this for known unknown functions. D4142697 was the diff that starting handling known unknown functions in this way, and bisecting shows that it was the start of the recent performance problems for Quandary.
This diff essentially reverts D4142697 by handling known unknowns as skips instead. Pragmatically, doing the propagation trick for Java/Android library functions (e.g., `String` functions!) matters much more, so i'm not too worried about the missed behaviors from this. Ideally, we will go back to the old handling once performance has improved (have lots of ideas there). But I need this to unblock me in the meantime.
Reviewed By: jeremydubreil
Differential Revision: D4205507
fbshipit-source-id: 79cb9c8
Summary:
Analyses should handle methods whose code is unknown and methods whose summary is a no-op differently.
Previously, this was done correctly for some kinds of methods (e.g., native methods, which were recognized as unknown), but not for others (interface and abstract methods).
This diff makes sure we correctly treat all three kinds as unknown.
Reviewed By: jeremydubreil
Differential Revision: D4142697
fbshipit-source-id: c88cff3
Summary:
Right now, taint gets lost if it flows into a constructor or procedure whose implementation is missing.
Since the core Java (e.g., String) and Android classes (e.g, Intent) are among these, this is bad.
We could handle this by writing a bunch of models instead, but that would be a lot of work (plus we may still miss cases).
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D4051591
fbshipit-source-id: 65851c8
Jeremy Dubreil
Sam Blackshear