[cfe-dev] return value of malloc

Artem Dergachev via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sat Apr 20 23:45:56 PDT 2019


That's right, the analyzer would only assume that a null value is 
possible after the code has explicitly checked for that. If you believe 
that it can't be null in the first place, why check?

If you really want to prevent the Analyzer from exploring the null path 
even after an explicit check, go to MallocChecker::MallocMemAux() and do 
something like

     State = State->assume(RetVal, true);

I guess we could have a flag for that, as well as for the opposite 
belief of "malloc should always be checked before use" (i.e., assume it 
can be null even without the explicit check in the code), but i'm not in 
favor of either of these two.

Also, @Kristóf: in your example the Analyzer cannot assume at line 3 `if 
(a) {}` that 'a' is equal to null. Because if it did, it would imply 
that a null dereference has already happened on line 2 on this execution 
path. This doesn't happen because on line 2 it not only doesn't assume 
that 'a' can be null, it in fact actively assumes that 'a' is not null. 
Most checkers should work this way: if the non-buggy state is feasible, 
transition into the non-buggy state and drop the buggy state entirely.

On 4/20/19 3:58 PM, Kristóf Umann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As far as I know, the analyzer is relatively conservative with such 
> functions, and only assumes that the returned value may be null, when 
> it is checked in the code, e.g.
>
> int *a = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int));
> *a = 5; // The analyzer won't assume that a may be null
> if (a) {} // Now the analyzer will assume that it may be null as well.
>
> Is your code structured like that?
>
> Cheers,
> Kristóf
>
> + Artem, am I correct here?
>
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 at 23:05, Kihong Heo via cfe-dev 
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi list,
>
>     Is there a simple way for Clang Static Analyzer to assume that
>     malloc-family functions always return non-null values?
>     Otherwise,  it would be appreciated if you point which part I
>     should change to do that.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Kihong
>     _______________________________________________
>     cfe-dev mailing list
>     cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>     https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>



More information about the cfe-dev mailing list