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