[cfe-dev] [analyzer] Proof-of-concept for Matcher-like checker API (graph matchers)
Aleksei Sidorin via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jul 2 01:39:30 PDT 2018
Sorry for late response.
16.06.2018 05:14, George Karpenkov via cfe-dev пишет:
>> On May 22, 2018, at 4:37 PM, Alexey Sidorin <alexey.v.sidorin at ya.ru
>> <mailto:alexey.v.sidorin at ya.ru>> wrote:
>> 22.05.2018 04:35, George Karpenkov пишет:
>>> Hi Alexey,
>>> As classics say, "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program
>>> contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow
>>> implementation of half of Common Lisp.”
>> Yes,https://xkcd.com/297/is what I was always thinking while writing
>> new AST matchers. Time-honored tradition :)
>>> Jokes aside, I think the concept and what you are doing is great,
>>> and we could certainly benefit from declarative matchers.
>>> However, I think the actual implementation and the set of matchers
>>> and predicates would require quite a bit of bikeshedding.
>> Sure. If we need this stuff - the design details are subject for
>> discussion and change.
>>> Are you familiar with similar works in this area?
>>> E.g. Oracle has a Soufflé project doing a similar task:
>>> http://souffle-lang.org <http://souffle-lang.org/>.
>>> They have found achieving high performance very challenging, and
>>> IIRC they resort to generating C++ code from the declaratively
>>> described matcher.
>> My goal was not to achieve extreme performance but not to hurt
>> analyzer's performance too much. Don't know how far I am from this
>> target, unfortunately.
>>> Maybe we would have to do the same in tablegen spirit.
>>> I’m sure there are more such works in the literature.
>> Yes, I know about some researches in this area, but thank you anyway!
>>>> On May 16, 2018, at 4:37 PM, Alexey Sidorin via cfe-dev
>>>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>> I'd like to share some results of my investigation targeted on
>>>> improvement of Clang Static Analyzer checker API. You can find some
>>>> previous conversation on this topic
>>>> In my investigation, I tried to solve a particular problem of
>>>> building a checker without generating new nodes.
>>> I agree that this is a worthy goal.
>>>> --------- Introduction and design goals ---------
>>>> In brief, I tried to use matchers-like API to make CSA checkers
>>>> look like this:
>>>> StatementMatcher NotChdir =
>>>> hasArgument(0, hasValue(stringRegion(refersString("/")))))))),
>>> Bikeshedding: I think it’s much better for the sequence matcher to
>>> run from start to end,
>>> since that’s how we think about the execution of a program.
>> Not sure that I understand completely what do you mean. The nodes are
>> written in the same sequence as they should be on the path in
> Yeah, but that doesn’t matter, right? We need to get a good API for
> checker writers, and the events are generally described in their
> progression as going forward.
Sorry, I still didn't get you. The events in the matcher are already
described in the order they should happen to report a bug:
1. Call to `chroot`.
2. Do not call `chdir("/")`.
3. Call anything but `chdir("/").
Or do you mean something else?
> Also “explodedNode” is probably an unfortunate name, and “node” would
> be better.
Naming is always a subject to change.
> I am also confused by the semantics of your list, since it mixes AST
> and “node” statements.
In this example, statement matchers are implicitly converted to exploded
node matchers and are applied only to ExplodedNodes that have StmtPoint
as their ProgramPoint. Initially, I was thinking it is a good idea but
soon discovered that I was wrong because it causes a mess between all
kinds of StmtPoint. This implicit conversions is likely to be removed.
There is also another implicit conversion from ProgramPoint matcher to
ExplodedNode matcher and I found it to be much more useful.
> Why is only the last matcher wrapped in “node”?
All sub-matchers of `hasSequence()` are matchers on ExplodedNode, but we
need to emit a warning on the last node, so we need something to bind
against. The bound node is used to emit a warning on it.
>>>> and I have managed to make some simple working examples.
>>>> The entire diff can be found
>>>> The code itself:https://github.com/a-sid/clang/tree/a4
>>>> There are several reasons why I have tried this approach.
>>>> 1. AST Matchers are already extensively used API for AST checking.
>>>> They are available both in Clang-Tidy and CSA. And I wanted to use
>>>> existing functionality as much as possible. So, I decided to extend
>>>> an existing API to make its usage seamless across different kinds
>>>> of checks: path-sensitive, AST-based and CFG-based.
>>>> 2. AST matchers effectively help clients to avoid a lot of checking
>>>> of dyn_cast results. This feature not only makes them more
>>>> convenient but also more safe because, in my experience, forgetting
>>>> a nullptr/None check is a pretty common mistake for checker writers.
>>>> 3. Testing of AST matchers don't require writing C++ code - it can
>>>> be done interactively with clang-query tool. And I believe that we
>>>> need similar functionality for CSA as well.
>>> Moreover, new matchers could be written without modifying clang. I
>>> wonder if we should support some kind of a plugin infrastructure
>>> which support matchers
>>> defined in a text file, e.g. something along the lines of:
>>> clang -cc1 —analyze -analyzer-checker=core,mymatcher
>> I planned to reuse dynamic matchers infrastructure and clang-query
>> for this. clang-query is a command-line tool but there shouldn't be
>> too much difference where the matcher string we parse comes from. The
>> problem here is that, AFAIR, using callbacks with dynamic matchers is
>> impossible. Still it is a very cool tool for quick matcher prototyping.
>>>> I didn't want to replace existing checker API. Instead, I tried to
>>>> make new possibilities usable independently or together with existing.
>>>> --------- Design and implementation ---------
>>>> The implementation consisted of a number of steps.
>>>> 1. Allow matching nodes of path-sensitive graph like usual AST
>>>> nodes. To make this possible, three actions were needed:
>>>> 1.1. ASTTypeTraits and DynTypedNode were extended to support
>>>> path-sensitive nodes: ExplodedNode, ProgramState, SVal, SymExpr,
>>>> etc. The implementation with graph node support is moved into a
>>>> separate class (ASTGraphTypeTraits) in ento namespace to resolve
>>>> cyclic dependencies (they are still exist, unfortunately, but are
>>>> header-only, so we can build the PoC).
>>>> 1.2. Some additions to AST matchers were made to add support for
>>>> new kinds of nodes.
>>>> 1.3. To make MatchFinder able to query specific options not
>>>> supported by pure AST, it was augmented with "Contexts". A matcher
>>>> that needs to query the path-sensitive engine asks the Finder for
>>>> the required Context which provides specific helper functions.
>>>> As the result of this step, we are able to write matchers like
>>>> expr(hasArgument(0, hasValue(stringRegion(refersString("/"))))).
>>>> 2. Create an engine for graph exploration and matching.
>>>> Unlike normal AST matchers, hasSequence is a path-sensitive
>>>> matcher. It is launched against ExplodedGraph. These matchers are
>>>> handled by GraphMatchFinder object. While searching a graph, it
>>>> collects matches. Each match contains a pointer to the
>>>> corresponding matcher and State ID of this match. The way how
>>>> matches are translated from one state ID to another is determined
>>>> by matcher operators.
>>>> For example, SequenceVariadicOperator, which is the base of
>>>> hasSequence() matcher, has "positive" and "negative" sub-matches.
>>>> Each positive matcher has its corresponding State ID. In order to
>>>> advance to the next State ID, a node being matched should match all
>>>> "negative" matchers before the next "positive" matchers and the
>>>> next "positive" matcher itself. Failure in matching "negative"
>>>> matcher discards the match.
>>>> The role of GraphMatchFinder is similar to MatchFinder: it is only
>>>> responsible for graph exploration and keeping bound nodes and matchers.
>>>> 3. Manage bound nodes.
>>>> While matching a single graph node, BoundNodes from AST MatchFinder
>>>> are used. AST matchers for path-sensitive nodes support bindings
>>>> out-of-the-box. However, the situation with graph matching is a bit
>>>> different. For graph matching, we have another system of bound
>>>> nodes. Each graph node has a related map of bounds aka GDMTy (yes,
>>>> the name is not a coincidence). GDMTy is a mapping from match ID to
>>>> BoundNodesMap which, in part, is effectively a map from std::string
>>>> to DynTypedNodes. This look pretty much like how GDM is organized
>>>> in ExplodedGraph, just without one level of indirection (it can be
>>>> added, though).
>>>> MatchFinder contexts should allow support of their own bindings.
>>>> This is how equalsBoundNode() matcher works for path-sensitive
>>>> nodes: it just queries all available contexts for the binding.
>>>> Finally, I have managed to make two checkers work in this way:
>>>> ChrootChecker (which is present in the introduction) and
>>>> TestAfterDivZeroChecker. Both them can be found in
>>>> ChrootCheckerV2.cpp and TestAfterDivZeroCheckerV2.cpp
>>>> correspondingly. They act like normal checkers: produce warnings
>>>> and use visitors. The main difference is that they cannot generate
>>>> sinks and use checkEndAnalysis callback. The code of these checkers
>>>> can be found here:
>>>> -------- Some features --------
>>>> 1.The design of bindings has an interesting consequence: it enables
>>>> the dynamic introspection of GDM which was pretty hard before.
>>>> (Hello alpha renaming?)
>>>> 2. Nothing prevents matchers to be used with existing checker API
>>>> for simplifying conditional checking inside callbacks. The matchers
>>>> are not planned as the replacement for the current API, but look
>>>> like a nice complementary part.
>>>> 3. Implicit conversion of Matcher<ProgramPoint> to
>>>> Matcher<ExplodedNode> and Matcher<SymExpr || MemRegion> to
>>>> Matcher<SVal> for writing shorter code.
>>>> -------- Not implemented/not checked yet --------
>>>> I tried to keep the PoC as minimal as possible. As the result, some
>>>> features are not implemented yet, but I believe they can be added.
>>>> 1. Usage of matchers inside checker callbacks
>>>> This is not exactly unimplemented, but is still untested.
>>>> 2. Dynamic matchers (clang-query interface)
>>>> In addition to work for supporting dynamic nodes (I don't know how
>>>> many efforts it can take), we need to enable matching against AST
>>>> nodes, not graph. But it doesn't look as a problem, we can just
>>>> make matchers polymorphic.
>>>> 3. Binding to successfully matched paths is not implemented yet -
>>>> only bindings to separate nodes. I wonder if we need path bindings
>>>> at all.
>>>> 4. Some corner cases are still FIXMEs: single-node sequences, for
>>>> 5. GDM is not based on immutable data structures like it is done in
>>>> CSA - it is just an STL map. Its performance can be poor (full copy
>>>> on every new node), but I don't think that changing it to use
>>>> immutable structures is hard.
>>>> 6. Matching on-the-fly
>>>> GraphMatchFinder should support on-the-fly matching during
>>>> ExplodedGraph building. For this support, we should just call its
>>>> advance() method each time a new node is created. However, this
>>>> possibility wasn't checked yet.
>>>> 7. Matching CFG and CallGraph isn't implemented because it was
>>>> considered to be far out of simple PoC.
>>>> 8. Only sequential matching is available now, and I didn't try to
>>>> implement other operators yet. So, implementing a checker similar
>>>> to PthreadLock can be tricky or even impossible for now.
>>>> -------- Known and potential issues --------
>>>> From matchers' side:
>>>> 1. Some tests don't pass because they rely on the checker ability
>>>> to generate sink nodes. Our matchers cannot do it by design so
>>>> tests don't pass.
>>> Actually I would disagree with this one: I think it would be better
>>> to support that, since many errors are considered fatal.
>>> (but that of course would require running the checkers on a stream
>>> of events, rather than on the already constructed graph)
>> As I answered to Artem, this is technically possible (but still
>> undesirable, I think) because matchers fire their given callbacks on
>> match, and callbacks are much less limited in their possibilities.
>>>> 2. Representing checker bindings as a map can be less effective
>>>> than storing data in structures. I didn't measure the overhead, so
>>>> I cannot give any numbers.
>>>> 3. Matchers are called on every node independently of its type.
>>>> This is not what CheckerManager does. I wonder if this detail can
>>>> affect performance as well.
>>> I would guess it would affect it hugely, and getting the performance
>>> right would be the biggest challenge for declarative matchers.
>> That's sad. I'll try to measure the overhead but I'm not sure I'll be
>> able to do it soon.
>>>> 4. Problems with cyclic dependencies. clangStaticAnalyzer has a
>>>> dependency on clangASTMatchers, therefore, clangASTMatchers cannot
>>>> depend on clangStaticAnalyzer. However, if we want ASTMatchers to
>>>> support static analyzer data structures, there should be a backward
>>>> dependency. Now this dependency is header-only.
>>>> 5. Code duplication. This is mostly fine for a sandbox but needs to
>>>> be reduced.
>>>> From analyzer's side:
>>>> 1. Many events are not reflected in the final ExplodedGraph. For
>>>> example, checkers can receive PointerEscape event, but the event
>>>> itself will not be recorded in the ExplodedGraph - only changes
>>>> made by checkers will. That's also true for Stmt nodes: I noticed
>>>> same issues with PostCondition. This makes matching a bit harder.
>>>> Should we add some information into ExplodedGraph?
>>>> 2. (Minor) Some static analyzer data structures don't support
>>>> traditional LLVM casting methods (dyn_cast, isa) because they lack
>>>> classof() method. I have fixed this internally and will put a patch
>>>> on review soon.
>>>> -------- Conclusion --------
>>>> Finally, there is a graph matching engine supporting basic
>>>> functionality and two checkers using it. I apologize for not
>>>> starting the discussion earlier, but I just wasn't sure that the
>>>> approach will work. Is anybody interested to have this stuff in
>>>> upstream (maybe, changed or improved)? If yes, I'll be happy to
>>>> contribute this work patch-by-patch and continue its improvement.
>>>> If no - well, I had enough fun playing with it.
>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
SRR, Samsung Electronics
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 13168 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the cfe-dev