[cfe-dev] Proposal: Integrate static analysis test suites

<Alexander G. Riccio> via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sat Feb 27 20:18:30 PST 2016 

Hmm. It seems that message got rejected because it was a tiny bit over the
size limit. It turns out those scripts were wrong anyways. These are
slightly better - Windows uses _strdup instead of strdup, and I don't know
how to conditionally #define strdup _strdup in the makefile - but you can
modify them to work locally.

Because of that strdup/_strdup issue, I've actually found a leak that Clang
misses when compiling on Windows. The test is SARD #149071, mem1-bad.c
<https://samate.nist.gov/SARD/view_testcase.php?tID=149071>.
MallocChecker::isCMemFunction appears to miss it because it doesn't exactly
match strdup:

​
If I understand correctly, to fix this, I just need to:

   1. add a new IdentifierInfo* to MallocChecker
   2. initialize it in the default constructor
   3. add a Ctx.Idents.get("_strdup") call
   in MallocChecker::initIdentifierInfo
   4. add the IdentifierInfo to the check in MallocChecker::isCMemFunction
   5. add the Identifier info the else if (FunI == II_strdup)
   in MallocChecker::checkPostStmt

...and that should be a 5 line patch.

Sincerely,
Alexander Riccio
--
"Change the world or go home."
about.me/ariccio

<http://about.me/ariccio>
If left to my own devices, I will build more.
⁂

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:35 PM, <Alexander G. Riccio> <test35965 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I've attached the scripts for the non-buggy SARD tests. Interestingly,
> I've actually had to append ".attachment" to the ".sh" and ".cmd"
> filenames, for gmail to let me send them. Gmail was blocking them as
> executables.
>
> I've dropped nine tests (of 100). I don't think they'll offer any value
> (for clang), so we won't be missing anything by dropping them.
>
> Four of those tests are about SQL injection - which we're quite far from
> being able to check - and also require third party (MySQL)
> headers/libraries to run. Anna expressed concern (private email) in
> non-self-sufficient tests, so those four are not feasible.
>
> The other five tests are about cross site scripting - which we're also
> quite far from being able to check - and require separate compilation. I'm
> terrible with makefiles, which is why separate compilation is a problem :)
> ...if anybody with makefile expertise can do this cleanly, please let me
> know!
>
> For the remaining tests, I've had to suppress a few false positives
> (notably "format string is not a string literal") so that everything builds
> cleanly.
>
> I don't have easy access to a proper Linux system, so I can't fully test
> these scripts (I can only really run SATestBuild.py manually: py -2
> "C:\LLVM\llvm\tools\clang\utils\analyzer\SATestBuild.py"), can someone
> try them for me?
>
> Sincerely,
> Alexander Riccio
> --
> "Change the world or go home."
> about.me/ariccio
>
> <http://about.me/ariccio>
> If left to my own devices, I will build more.
> ⁂
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:13 AM, <Alexander G. Riccio> <
> test35965 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> An update: I've pretty much gotten the non-bug version of the testsuite
>> ready, and now that I know what I'm doing, the buggy version will be soon
>> to follow.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Alexander Riccio
>> --
>> "Change the world or go home."
>> about.me/ariccio
>>
>> <http://about.me/ariccio>
>> If left to my own devices, I will build more.
>> ⁂
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:52 PM, <Alexander G. Riccio> <
>> test35965 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's an update, I'd been waiting to hear back from NIST/SAMATE about
>>> licensing of the SARD testsuite, and it *looks* like we can use it:
>>>
>>> Hi Alexander,
>>>>
>>>> You are free to use, copy, modify, and distribute (in particular,
>>>> integrate into Clang's static analysis testing infrastructure) all test
>>>> cases included in the Software Assurance Reference Dataset (SARD) test
>>>> suites 100 and 101.
>>>>
>>>> Most of these test cases were developed by NIST, and so they are in the
>>>> public domain. The rest of the test cases were contributed by others with
>>>> permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute them.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this is helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Vadim Okun
>>>> SAMATE Project Leader
>>>> vadim.okun at nist.gov
>>>
>>>
>>> The only bit that's not crystal clear is "contributed by others with
>>> permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute them", which I think fits
>>> the UIUC license requirements.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Alexander Riccio
>>> --
>>> "Change the world or go home."
>>> about.me/ariccio
>>>
>>> <http://about.me/ariccio>
>>> If left to my own devices, I will build more.
>>> ⁂
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:11 AM, <Alexander G. Riccio> <
>>> test35965 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A quick update on this project:
>>>>
>>>> I've been slowed by a technical issue, and I lost ~2 weeks as two
>>>> family members were in the hospital (sorry!).
>>>>
>>>> Since I develop on Windows, I quickly hit a testcase that clang didn't
>>>> detect, as I discussed in "Clang on Windows fails to detect trivial
>>>> double free in static analysis".
>>>>
>>>> That resulted in D16245 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D16245>, which (when
>>>> accepted) fixes that issue. I want to ensure that novice can simply pass
>>>> "--analyze", and clang to "just work", so I've intentionally put off
>>>> further testing work. Otherwise, I could hack around it, and subsequently
>>>> forget about the workaround. Once that's dealt with, then I can resume work
>>>> at a faster pace.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Alexander Riccio
>>>> --
>>>> "Change the world or go home."
>>>> about.me/ariccio
>>>>
>>>> <http://about.me/ariccio>
>>>> If left to my own devices, I will build more.
>>>> ⁂
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 2, 2016, at 12:45 PM, <Alexander G. Riccio> <
>>>>> test35965 at gmail.com> <Alexander G. Riccio> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Devin has started writing scripts for running additional analyzer
>>>>>> tests as described in this thread:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A buildbot sounds like the perfect idea!
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea was to check out the tests/projects from the existing repos
>>>>>> instead of copying them. Would it be possible to do the same with these
>>>>>> tests?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Eh? What do you mean? Would that stop someone from running them in the
>>>>> clang unit test infrastructure?
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that these tests WILL need to be modified to run in the
>>>>> Clang testing infrastructure.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, the analyzer is only tested with the regression tests.
>>>>> However, those need to be fast (since they effect all clang developers) and
>>>>> they have limited coverage. Internally, we’ve been testing the analyzer
>>>>> with the test scripts Devin described in the email I referenced. We use
>>>>> that testing method to analyze whole projects and long running tests. Those
>>>>> tests can and should be executed separately as they take more than an hour
>>>>> to complete. The plan is to set up an external builedbot running those
>>>>> tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> How long would it take to analyze the tests you are planning to add?
>>>>> Depending on the answer to that question, adding your tests to the new
>>>>> builedbot might be a better fit than adding them to the regression tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also prefer not to modify the externally written tests since it
>>>>> would allow us to update them more easily, for example, when a new version
>>>>> of the tests comes out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any way to treat static analyzer warnings as plain old
>>>>> warnings/errors? Dumping them to a plist file from a command line
>>>>> compilation is a bit annoying, and I think is incompatible with the clang
>>>>> unit testing infrastructure?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Plist output is one if the outputs that the clang static analyzer
>>>>> supports. It is a much richer format than the textual warning since it
>>>>> contains information about the path on which the error occurred. We did
>>>>> have some lit tests checking plist output as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> Alexander Riccio
>>>>> --
>>>>> "Change the world or go home."
>>>>> about.me/ariccio
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://about.me/ariccio>
>>>>> If left to my own devices, I will build more.
>>>>> ⁂
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2015, at 11:01 AM, <Alexander G. Riccio> <
>>>>>> alexander at riccio.com> <Alexander G. Riccio> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, if the goal is to have the tests
>>>>>>> because you would like to make efforts to have the compiler diagnose
>>>>>>> their cases properly, that's far more interesting and a good reason
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> bring in the tests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's exactly my intention. Improving the static analyzer to detect
>>>>>> these cases, that will be interesting.
>>>>>> placeholder text
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the other tests are not clearly licensed, we
>>>>>>> should try to get NIST to clarify the license of them before
>>>>>>> inclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds like the best idea, as a government agency, they almost
>>>>>> certainly have lawyers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the next step is to integrate the working (error correctly
>>>>>> diagnosed) tests, only those that are obviously in the public domain, and
>>>>>> propose them as a big batched patch. This shouldn't itself be
>>>>>> controversial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How exactly do I submit a patch? I see that the LLVM developer policy
>>>>>> says to send it to the mailing list (cfe-commits), but I also see that Phabricator
>>>>>> comes into this somewhere
>>>>>> <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151214/145026.html>
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Devin has started writing scripts for running additional analyzer
>>>>>> tests as described in this thread:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/analyzer-Adding-build-bot-for-static-analyzer-reference-results-td4047770.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea was to check out the tests/projects from the existing repos
>>>>>> instead of copying them. Would it be possible to do the same with these
>>>>>> tests?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for not replying sooner!
>>>>>> Anna.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>> Alexander Riccio
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "Change the world or go home."
>>>>>> about.me/ariccio
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://about.me/ariccio>
>>>>>> If left to my own devices, I will build more.
>>>>>> ⁂
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Aaron Ballman <
>>>>>> aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:50 PM, <Alexander G. Riccio> via cfe-dev
>>>>>>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> > First time Clang contributor here,
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > I'd like to add the "C Test Suite for Source Code Analyzer v2", a
>>>>>>> > relatively small test suite (102 cases/flaws), some of which Clang
>>>>>>> > doesn't yet detect*. See link at bottom.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Immediate questions:
>>>>>>> > 0. Does the Clang community/project like the idea?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've included a few other devs (CCed) to get further opinions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I like the idea of being able to diagnose the issues covered by the
>>>>>>> test suite, but I don't think including the test suite by itself is
>>>>>>> particularly useful without that goal in mind. Also, one question I
>>>>>>> would have has to do with the licensing of the tests themselves and
>>>>>>> whether we would need to do anything special there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > 1. What's the procedure for including new tests? (not the
>>>>>>> technical,
>>>>>>> > but the community/project).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Getting the discussion going about the desired goal (as you are
>>>>>>> doing)
>>>>>>> is the right first step.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > 2. How do I include failing tests without breaking things? Some of
>>>>>>> > these tests will fail - that's why I'm proposing their inclusion -
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> > they shouldn't yet cause the regression testing system to complain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed, any test cases that are failing would have to fail
>>>>>>> gracefully.
>>>>>>> I assume that by failure, you mean "should diagnose in some way, but
>>>>>>> currently does not". I would probably split the tests into two types:
>>>>>>> one set of tests that properly diagnose the issue (can be checked
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> FileCheck or -verify, depending on the kind of tests we're talking
>>>>>>> about), and one set of tests where we do not diagnose, but want to
>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>> them someday (which can be tested with expect-no-diagnostics, for
>>>>>>> example). This way, we can ensure test cases continue to diagnose
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> we want them to, and we can be alerted when new diagnostics start to
>>>>>>> catch previously uncaught tests. This is assuming that it makes sense
>>>>>>> to include all of the tests at once, which may not make sense in
>>>>>>> practice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > 3. How does Clang handle licensing of third party code? Some of
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>> > tests are clearly in the public domain (developed at NIST, says "in
>>>>>>> > the public domain"), but others are less clearly licensed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh look, you asked the same question I asked. ;-) If the tests are in
>>>>>>> the public domain and clearly state as such, I think we can go ahead
>>>>>>> and include them. If the other tests are not clearly licensed, we
>>>>>>> should try to get NIST to clarify the license of them before
>>>>>>> inclusion. Depending on the license, we may be able to include them
>>>>>>> under their original license. If we cannot clarify the license, I
>>>>>>> would guess that we simply should not include those tests as part of
>>>>>>> our test suite. Note: I could be totally wrong, IANAL. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Should the community accept that testsuite, and I successfully add
>>>>>>> > that test suite, then I'd like to step it up a bit, and include the
>>>>>>> > "Juliet Test Suite for C/C++". "Juliet" is a huge test suite by the
>>>>>>> > NSA Center for Assured Software & NIST's Software Assurance Metrics
>>>>>>> > And Tool Evaluation project, which has 25,477 test cases (!!) for
>>>>>>> 118
>>>>>>> > CWEs. I don't think any other open source compiler could compete
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> > Clang after this. There's a ton of literature on the "Juliet"
>>>>>>> suite,
>>>>>>> > and listing it here is not necessary.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > This project would be my first Clang contribution :)
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Personally, I'm interested in static analysis, and this is the
>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>> > step in understanding & improving Clang's static analysis
>>>>>>> > capabilities.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > I have some ideas on how to detect the currently undetected bugs,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> > I'm curious to see where things lead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adding the tests by themselves is not necessarily interesting to the
>>>>>>> project unless they exercise the compiler in ways it's not currently
>>>>>>> being exercised. So just having tests for the sake of having the
>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>> is not too useful (IMO). However, if the goal is to have the tests
>>>>>>> because you would like to make efforts to have the compiler diagnose
>>>>>>> their cases properly, that's far more interesting and a good reason
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> bring in the tests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One possible approach if you are interested in having the compiler
>>>>>>> diagnose the cases is to bring the tests in one at a time. Start with
>>>>>>> the initial batch of "these are diagnosed properly", then move on to
>>>>>>> "this test is diagnosed properly because of this patch." Eventually
>>>>>>> we'll get to the stage where all of the tests are diagnosed properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Secondary questions:
>>>>>>> > 1. How should I break the new tests up into patches? Should I just
>>>>>>> > whack the whole 102 case suite into a single patch, or a bunch of
>>>>>>> > smaller ones?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See comments above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > 2. How does the Clang/LLVM static analysis testing infrastructure
>>>>>>> > work? I'm going to have to figure this out myself anyways, but
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> > should I start? Any tips on adding new tests?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/checker_dev_manual.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another good place for some of these checkers may be clang-tidy, or
>>>>>>> the compiler frontend itself. It's likely to depend on case-by-case
>>>>>>> code patterns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for looking into this!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~Aaron
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > *If I remember correctly,
>>>>>>> > https://samate.nist.gov/SRD/view_testcase.php?tID=149055 passes
>>>>>>> > analysis without complaint. I manually spot checked a very small
>>>>>>> > number of tests.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > "C Test Suite for Source Code Analyzer v2" (valid code):
>>>>>>> > https://samate.nist.gov/SRD/view.php?tsID=101
>>>>>>> > "C Test Suite for Source Code Analyzer v2" (invalid code):
>>>>>>> > https://samate.nist.gov/SRD/view.php?tsID=100
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > "Juliet Test Suite for C/C++" (files):
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> https://samate.nist.gov/SRD/testsuites/juliet/Juliet_Test_Suite_v1.2_for_C_Cpp.zip
>>>>>>> > "Juliet Test Suite for C/C++" (docs):
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> https://samate.nist.gov/SRD/resources/Juliet_Test_Suite_v1.2_for_C_Cpp_-_User_Guide.pdf
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Sincerely,
>>>>>>> > Alexander Riccio
>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> > 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/20160227/84d9b0c4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: strdup_leak_missed_small.PNG
Type: image/png
Size: 23793 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160227/84d9b0c4/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SARD_SCRIPTS_attachment.7z
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 19616 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160227/84d9b0c4/attachment.obj>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list