Skip to content

Implement C Pointers3 package #139

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 41 commits into from
Feb 15, 2023
Merged

Implement C Pointers3 package #139

merged 41 commits into from
Feb 15, 2023

Conversation

nicolaswill
Copy link
Contributor

@nicolaswill nicolaswill commented Nov 16, 2022

Description

Implements the C Pointers3 package

Change request type

  • Release or process automation (GitHub workflows, internal scripts)
  • Internal documentation
  • External documentation
  • Query files (.ql, .qll, .qls or unit tests)
  • External scripts (analysis report or other code shipped as part of a release)

Rules with added or modified queries

  • No rules added
  • Queries have been added for the following rules:
    • EXP32-C (closes github/coding-standards-team#764)
    • EXP36-C (closes github/coding-standards-team#765)
    • EXP39-C (closes github/coding-standards-team#766)
    • EXP43-C (closes github/coding-standards-team#767)
  • Queries have been modified for the following rules:
    • RULE-11-7

Release change checklist

A change note (development_handbook.md#change-notes) is required for any pull request which modifies:

  • The structure or layout of the release artifacts.
  • The evaluation performance (memory, execution time) of an existing query.
  • The results of an existing query in any circumstance.

If you are only adding new rule queries, a change note is not required.

Author: Is a change note required?

  • Yes
  • No

Reviewer: Confirm that either a change note is not required or the change note is required and has been added.

  • Confirmed

Query development review checklist

For PRs that add new queries or modify existing queries, the following checklist should be completed by both the author and reviewer:

Author

  • Have all the relevant rule package description files been checked in?
  • Have you verified that the metadata properties of each new query is set appropriately?
  • Do all the unit tests contain both "COMPLIANT" and "NON_COMPLIANT" cases?
  • Are the alert messages properly formatted and consistent with the style guide?
  • Have you run the queries on OpenPilot and verified that the performance and results are acceptable?
    As a rule of thumb, predicates specific to the query should take no more than 1 minute, and for simple queries be under 10 seconds. If this is not the case, this should be highlighted and agreed in the code review process.
  • Does the query have an appropriate level of in-query comments/documentation?
  • Have you considered/identified possible edge cases?
  • Does the query not reinvent features in the standard library?
  • Can the query be simplified further (not golfed!)

Reviewer

  • Have all the relevant rule package description files been checked in?
  • Have you verified that the metadata properties of each new query is set appropriately?
  • Do all the unit tests contain both "COMPLIANT" and "NON_COMPLIANT" cases?
  • Are the alert messages properly formatted and consistent with the style guide?
  • Have you run the queries on OpenPilot and verified that the performance and results are acceptable?
    As a rule of thumb, predicates specific to the query should take no more than 1 minute, and for simple queries be under 10 seconds. If this is not the case, this should be highlighted and agreed in the code review process.
  • Does the query have an appropriate level of in-query comments/documentation?
  • Have you considered/identified possible edge cases?
  • Does the query not reinvent features in the standard library?
  • Can the query be simplified further (not golfed!)

lcartey and others added 9 commits November 7, 2022 09:57
Add rule definition and package files
Add Pointers3 to package list in tasks.json
The previous message referenced a "pointer to void type" rather than "pointer to object type" as specified by the query.
Additionally updated the `EXP36-C` test-case and refactored `MEM57-CPP` to move certain classes and predicates to the `Alignment.qll` library for re-use in `EXP36-C`.
@nicolaswill nicolaswill requested a review from lcartey November 16, 2022 16:26
@nicolaswill nicolaswill self-assigned this Nov 16, 2022
Copy link
Collaborator

@lcartey lcartey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Started my review, will add some more comments tomorrow.

Copy link
Collaborator

@lcartey lcartey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added a few comments for early feedback.

@nicolaswill nicolaswill requested a review from lcartey January 16, 2023 21:20
@nicolaswill
Copy link
Contributor Author

nicolaswill commented Jan 16, 2023

small note: 8633a30 is the first commit to contain the EXP32-C performance fix and changes to getVolatileDepth

@nicolaswill nicolaswill marked this pull request as ready for review January 27, 2023 01:43
@nicolaswill
Copy link
Contributor Author

nicolaswill commented Jan 27, 2023

@lcartey EXP43-C - RestrictPointerReferencesOverlappingObject.ql is a bit slow on OpenPilot due to data-flow-related predicates; the execution time was just under 3 minutes on my machine with a cold cache. I am also not sure if the final approach I took for that query is quite right and could use an in-depth review.

@nicolaswill nicolaswill enabled auto-merge January 27, 2023 02:19
Copy link
Contributor

@knewbury01 knewbury01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

just some minor comments!

Nikita Kraiouchkine added 6 commits January 28, 2023 01:20
Copy link
Collaborator

@lcartey lcartey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A few final comments, mostly on refining messages a couple of perf/scope issues. Looking good!

@nicolaswill nicolaswill requested a review from lcartey February 15, 2023 21:19
@nicolaswill
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've made changes to address all of the above comments.

@nicolaswill nicolaswill merged commit 1821034 into main Feb 15, 2023
@nicolaswill nicolaswill deleted the pointers3 branch February 15, 2023 22:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants