Skip to content

C++: Pull in the latest version of TaintedPath.ql from CodeQL #149

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 3 commits into from
Dec 7, 2022

Conversation

jketema
Copy link
Collaborator

@jketema jketema commented Dec 6, 2022

Description

(Note that this PR targets the next branch, which is used by the CodeQL CI to detect changes that break github/codeql-coding-standards. The changes from this PR should eventually be merged to main.)

We plan to deprecate the DefaultTaintTracking library. As part of this all queries depending on the library will need to be rewritten. For coding standards this affects DoNotPerformFileOperationsOnDevices.ql from FIO32-C, which is a copy of CodeQL's TaintedPath.ql. This PR pulls in the initial rewrite we did on the CodeQL side here. The performance we measured is similar to that of the old version, we do see some result changes, which we accepted on the CodeQL side (the query is/was quite noisy in any case).

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:
    • rule number here
  • Queries have been modified for the following rules:
    • FIO32-C

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!)

@jketema jketema marked this pull request as ready for review December 6, 2022 16:19
@mbaluda mbaluda self-requested a review December 6, 2022 17:19
Copy link
Contributor

@mbaluda mbaluda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The change keeps the query in sync with the original one from the standard library.
The results do not change on the project test cases.
LGTM!

@jketema jketema merged commit 73c9ffc into github:next Dec 7, 2022
@jketema jketema deleted the jketema/update-taintedpath branch December 7, 2022 10:40
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