[PATCH] D83407: [analyzer][StdLibraryFunctionsChecker] Add POSIX networking functions

[Gabor Marton via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

martong marked an inline comment as done.
martong added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:1735-1747
+      if (!addToFunctionSummaryMap(
+              "accept", Summary(ArgTypes{IntTy, *StructSockaddrPtrRestrictTy,
+                                         *Socklen_tPtrRestrictTy},
+                                RetType{IntTy}, NoEvalCall)
+                            .ArgConstraint(ArgumentCondition(
+                                0, WithinRange, Range(0, IntMax)))))
+        // Do not add constraints on sockaddr.
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> This is quite a bit of code duplication -- if we failed to match the precise `accept`, we just try again with the middle argument type being unspecified? Whats the difference between this and trying to match with `Irrelevant` straight away?
>  if we failed to match the precise accept, we just try again with the middle argument type being unspecified?
Yes. And that will be a successful match in the case where `sockaddr` is a transparent union.

> Whats the difference between this and trying to match with Irrelevant straight away?
Yeah, it's a good catch. There is no difference with `accept` because we don't have any constraints on `sockaddr` anyway. But, the other functions have fewer constraints with the transparent union.
Perhaps we should separate the body of the `Summary` from the `Signature` and in this case we could reuse that for both signatures. Or as you suggested we could just match by default with the `Irrelevant`. What do you think?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D83407/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D83407