[cfe-dev] How to force Clang static checker to check the code that will not be executed in some situations???

changze cui via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jan 3 19:45:24 PST 2019


Hi Ella and George,
   Thanks for your timely help. Now I have a better understanding of this
problem. I will also read this paper carefully.

Regards,
Chaz

Ella Oikawa <alansnape3058 at gmail.com> 于2019年1月4日周五 上午11:28写道:

> In case you cannot reach the full paper.
>
> Regards,
> Ella
>
> Ella Oikawa <alansnape3058 at gmail.com> 于2019年1月4日周五 上午11:18写道:
>
>> scan build will only follow your build command to preprocess your code
>> and check the bugs in the preprocessed code.
>> If you want to scan the code with STATS defined, you need to tell the
>> compile process to define STATS while compiling.
>>
>> The STATS variable can either be defined to a specific value or not
>> defined, only one version is available in one scan, but you can scan it
>> again with different values.
>>
>> Our team had researched this problem before, if there are a lot of macro
>> switches, you can use combinatorial test technique to help you.
>> Here is our previous research on using combinatorial test technique to
>> cover multiple macro switches values:
>> https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2017.91
>> (I am not one of the authors, as I was not the member of our team at that
>> time. But you can still contact me or the last two authors (my boss) if you
>> are interested in the method.)😝
>>
>> The tool used in our research, Canalyze, is a private fork of CSA with
>> our optimizations. The similar method can also be used on scan build.
>> As it is the strategy not the tool that matters.
>> I am not familiar with KLEE, but as far as I know about KLEE, the similar
>> method can also be utilized on it.
>>
>> Hope our research will be useful to you.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ella
>>
>> changze cui via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> 于2019年1月3日周四 下午6:27写道:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>    Recently, I am using Clang static checker to find buffer overflow
>>> related bugs. There is one case that the buggy code will be executed only
>>> if STATS is defined  (#ifdef STATS). I hope my checker can find all the
>>> bugs in a program even in the cases that the code will not be executed for
>>> now. Do you have any idea how can I achieve this?
>>>    The following is a part of the buggy code. Since "STATS" is not
>>> defined, variable a and ns will be NULL. Thus, some code will not be
>>> checked by Clang and the checker will miss one bug.
>>>    I put the full code as the attached file. Let me know if you have any
>>> solution. Thanks in advance!!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Chaz
>>>
>>> static void nslookupComplain(sysloginfo, queryname, complaint, dname,
>>> a_rr, nsdp)
>>> const char *sysloginfo, *queryname, *complaint, *dname;
>>> const struct databuf *a_rr, *nsdp;
>>> {
>>> #ifdef STATS
>>> char nsbuf[20];
>>> char abuf[20];
>>> #endif
>>>   char *a, *ns;
>>>   if (sysloginfo && queryname)
>>>    {
>>>    char buf[999];
>>>
>>>     a = ns = (char *)NULL;
>>> #ifdef STATS
>>> /* this part will not be executed because STATS is not defined */
>>> /* so a and ns will be equal to NULL */
>>>     if (nsdp) {
>>>      /* assign value to a and ns */
>>>     }
>>> #endif
>>>     if ( a != NULL || ns != NULL)
>>>      {
>>> /* the code here will not be checked by Clang because a and ns are equal
>>> to NULL */
>>>      /*This line is a buggy point, but it cannot be found by Clang static
>>> checker now*/
>>>      sprintf(buf, "%s: query(%s) %s (%s:%s) learnt (A=%s:NS=%s)",
>>>        sysloginfo, queryname,
>>>        complaint, dname,
>>>        inet_ntoa(data_inaddr(a_rr->d_data)),
>>>        a ? a : "<Not Available>",
>>>        ns ? ns : "<Not Available>" );
>>>      }
>>>     else{
>>>      /*This is another buggy point, can be found by Clang static
>>> checker*/
>>>      sprintf(buf, "%s: query(%s) %s (%s:%s)",
>>>        sysloginfo, queryname,
>>>        complaint, dname,
>>>        inet_ntoa(data_inaddr(a_rr->d_data)));
>>>      }
>>>    }
>>> }
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20190104/8d91a5cd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list