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 ensures that each attribute type can only be present once per
address. Makes ~80x time improvement on pathological cases such as
Duff's device.
This introduces a new kind of Set in `PrettyPrintable`.
Reviewed By: mbouaziz
Differential Revision: D14645091
fbshipit-source-id: c7f9b760c
Summary:
When joining two lists of disjuncts we try to ensure there isn't a state
that under-approximates another already in the list. This helps reduce
the number of disjuncts that are generated by conditionals and loops.
Before we would always just add more disjuncts unless they were
physically equal but now we do a subgraph computation to assess
under-approximation.
We only do this half-heartedly for now however, only taking into
consideration the "new" disjuncts vs the "old" ones. It probably makes
sense to do a full quadratic search to minimise the number of disjuncts
from time to time but this isn't done here.
Reviewed By: mbouaziz
Differential Revision: D14258482
fbshipit-source-id: c2dad4889
Summary:
It turns out keeping attributes (such as invalidation facts) separate
from the memory is a bad idea and leads to loss of precision and false
positives, as seen in the new test (which previously generated a
report).
Allow me to illustrate on this example, which is a stylised version of
the issue in the added test: previously we'd have:
```
state1 = { x = 1; invalids={} }
state2 = { x = 2; invalids ={1} }
join(state1, state2) = { x = {1, 2}; invalids={{1, 2}} }
```
So even though none of the states said that `x` pointed to an invalid
location, the join state says it does because `1` and `2` have been
glommed together. The fact `x=1` from `state1` and the fact "1 is
invalid" from `state2` conspire together and `x` is now invalid even
though it shouldn't.
Instead, if we record attributes as part of the memory we get that `x`
is still valid after the join:
```
state1 = { x = (1, {}) }
state2 = { x = (2, {}) }
join(state1, state2) = { x = ({1, 2}, {}) }
```
Reviewed By: mbouaziz
Differential Revision: D12958130
fbshipit-source-id: 53dc81cc7
Summary:
Getting this right will be long and complex so for now the easiest is to
underreport and only consider as invalid the addresses we know to be invalid on
both sides of a join. In fact the condition for an address to be invalid after
a join is more complex than this: it is invalid only if *all* the addresses in
its equivalence class as discovered by the join are invalid.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D12823925
fbshipit-source-id: 2ca109356
Summary:
Instead of the non-sensical piecewise join we had until now write
a proper one. Hopefully the comments explain what it does. Main one:
```
(* high-level idea: maintain some union-find data structure to identify locations in one heap
with locations in the other heap. Build the initial join state as follows:
- equate all locations that correspond to identical variables in both stacks, eg joining
stacks {x=1} and {x=2} adds "1=2" to the unification.
- add all addresses reachable from stack variables to the join state heap
This gives us an abstract state that is the union of both abstract states, but more states
can still be made equal. For instance, if 1 points to 3 in the first heap and 2 points to 4
in the second heap and we deduced "1 = 2" from the stacks already (as in the example just
above) then we can deduce "3 = 4". Proceed in this fashion until no more equalities are
discovered, and return the abstract state where a canonical representative has been chosen
consistently for each equivalence class (this is what the union-find data structure gives
us). *)
```
Reviewed By: mbouaziz
Differential Revision: D10483978
fbshipit-source-id: f6ffd7528
Jules Villard
Josh Berdine