Summary:
Previously, at each function call, we added a `WrittenTo` attribute for applying the address of the actuals. However, this results in mistakenly considering each function application that inspects its argument as impure. Instead, we should only propagate `WrittenTo` if the actuals have already `WrittenTo` attributes.
For instance, for the following functions
```
public static boolean is_null(Byte a) {
return a == null;
}
public static boolean call_is_null(Byte a) {
return is_null(a);
}
```
We used to get the following pulse summary for `call_is_null` (showing only one of the disjuncts):
```
#0: PRE:
{ roots={ &a=v1 };
mem ={ v1 -> { * -> v2 } };
attrs={ v1 -> { MustBeValid },
v2 -> { Arith =null, BoItv ([max(0, v2), min(0, v2)]) } };}
POST:
{ roots={ &a=v1, &return=v8 };
mem ={ v1 -> { * -> v2 }, v8 -> { * -> v4 } };
attrs={ v2 -> { Arith =null,
BoItv ([max(0, v2), min(0, v2)]),
WrittenTo-----------WRONG },
v4 -> { Arith =1,
BoItv (1),
Invalid ConstantDereference(is the constant 1),
WrittenTo-----------WRONG },
v8 -> { WrittenTo } };}
SKIPPED_CALLS: { }
```
where we mistakenly recorded a `WrittenTo` for `v2` (what `a` points to). As a result, we considered `call_is_null` as impure :( This diff fixes that since the callee `is_null` doesn't have any `WrittenTo` attributes for its parameter `a`. So, we don't propagate `WrittenTo` and get the following summary
```
#0: PRE:
{ roots={ &a=v1 };
mem ={ v1 -> { * -> v2 } };
attrs={ v1 -> { MustBeValid },
v2 -> { Arith =null, BoItv ([max(0, v2), min(0, v2)]) } };}
POST:
{ roots={ &a=v1, &return=v8 };
mem ={ v1 -> { * -> v2 }, v8 -> { * -> v4 } };
attrs={ v2 -> { Arith =null, BoItv ([max(0, v2), min(0, v2)]) },
v4 -> { Arith =1,
BoItv (1),
Invalid ConstantDereference(is the constant 1) },
v8 -> { WrittenTo } };}
SKIPPED_CALLS: { }
```
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D20490102
fbshipit-source-id: 253d8ef64
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:
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:
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