Summary:
See updated tests and code comments: this changes many arithmetic
operations to detect when a contradiction "p|->- * p=0" is about to be
detected, and generate a latent issue instead. It's hacky but it does
what we want. Many APIs change because of this so there's some code
churn but the overall end result is not much worse thanks to monadic
operators.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D26918553
fbshipit-source-id: da2abc652
Summary:
Communicate new facts from the arithmetic domain to the memory domain to
detect contradictions between the two.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D24832079
fbshipit-source-id: 2caf8e9af
Summary:
Take another page from the Incorrectness Logic book and refrain from reporting issues on paths unless we know for sure that this path will be taken.
Previously, we would report on paths that are merely *not impossible*. This goes very far in the other direction, so it's possible we'll want to go back to some sort of middle ground. Or maybe not. See the changes in the tests to get a sense of what we're missing.
Reviewed By: ezgicicek
Differential Revision: D24014719
fbshipit-source-id: d451faf02
Summary:
This time it's personal.
Roll out pulse's own arithmetic domain to be fast and be able to add
precision as needed. Formulas are precise representations of the path
condition to allow for good inter-procedural precision. Reasoning on
these is somewhat ad-hoc (except for equalities, but even these aren't
quite properly saturated in general), so expect lots of holes.
Skipping dead code in the interest of readability as this (at least
temporarily) doesn't use pudge anymore. This may make a come-back as
pudge has/will have better precision: the proposed implementation of
`PulseFormula` is very cheap so can be used any time we could want to
prune paths (see following commits), but this comes at the price of some
precision. Calling into pudge at reporting time still sounds like a good
idea to reduce false positives due to infeasible paths.
#skipdeadcode
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D22576004
fbshipit-source-id: c91793256
Summary:
When applying function summaries, we are careful not to violate the
summary's assumptions about non-aliasing. For example, the summary we
generate for `foo(x,y) { *x = *y; }` will have `x` and `y` be allocated
to two different `AbstractValue.t` in the heap, representing
disjointness.
However, the current logic is too coarse and also rejects passing the
same pure value to functions that made no assumption about them being
equal or different, eg `goo(int x,int y) { int z = x + y; }`. This is
because the corresponding `AbstractValue.t` are different in the
callee's summary, but are represented by only one same value in callers
such as `goo(i,i)`.
This diff restricts the "don't violate aliasing" condition to only
consider heap-allocated values. This is consistent with separation logic
by the way: we use the implication `x|->- * y|->- |- x≠y`, which is
valid only when both `x` and `y` are both allocated in the heap as in
the left-hand-side of `|-`.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D22574297
fbshipit-source-id: 206a18499
Jules Villard