Taintflow: Additional steps at sink#11539
Closed
MathiasVP wants to merge 8 commits into
Closed
Conversation
Contributor
|
Let's not do this. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Some background:
For C/C++ we really want to track pointer indirections (i.e., whatever
ppoints to whenpis a pointer) precisely. Intuitively, we can do this perfectly well by usingArrayContentto model flow to a pointer's indirection.However, as we learned (the hard way) a year ago, this doesn't perform well. So instead, we're tracking
*pprecisely by allocating an SSA variable for each indirection. We then have taint flow frompto*p. However, we don't want taint flow from*ptopin general.This PR:
This PR adds a predicate for specifying taint flow that is only applied at the very end when a TC of such steps can reach a sink.
The plan is to specify taint flow from
*ptopusing this predicate (which I'll do in a separate PR as it depends on another large C/C++ PR).@aschackmull I'm curious to hear what your opinion on this is.