From 8f40afbf7740c39fccaa4b8cc5aa2814d5ed6fdc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ted Kremenek <kremenek@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:08:26 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] [analyzer] check lazy bindings in RegionStore first before
looking for default values. Fixes <rdar://problem/11269741>.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@155615 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
---
lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp | 16 ++++++++--------
test/Analysis/malloc.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp b/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp
index cc3ea8c3bf5..e849333f94e 100644
--- a/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp
+++ b/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp
@@ -1274,7 +1274,15 @@ SVal RegionStoreManager::getBindingForFieldOrElementCommon(Store store,
// At this point we have already checked in either getBindingForElement or
// getBindingForField if 'R' has a direct binding.
RegionBindings B = GetRegionBindings(store);
+
+ // Lazy binding?
+ Store lazyBindingStore = NULL;
+ const MemRegion *lazyBindingRegion = NULL;
+ llvm::tie(lazyBindingStore, lazyBindingRegion) = GetLazyBinding(B, R, R);
+ if (lazyBindingRegion)
+ return getLazyBinding(lazyBindingRegion, lazyBindingStore);
+
// Record whether or not we see a symbolic index. That can completely
// be out of scope of our lookup.
bool hasSymbolicIndex = false;
@@ -1299,14 +1307,6 @@ SVal RegionStoreManager::getBindingForFieldOrElementCommon(Store store,
break;
}
- // Lazy binding?
- Store lazyBindingStore = NULL;
- const MemRegion *lazyBindingRegion = NULL;
- llvm::tie(lazyBindingStore, lazyBindingRegion) = GetLazyBinding(B, R, R);
-
- if (lazyBindingRegion)
- return getLazyBinding(lazyBindingRegion, lazyBindingStore);
-
if (R->hasStackNonParametersStorage()) {
if (isa<ElementRegion>(R)) {
// Currently we don't reason specially about Clang-style vectors. Check
diff --git a/test/Analysis/malloc.c b/test/Analysis/malloc.c
index 3b4712320b7..32c6171f8c4 100644
--- a/test/Analysis/malloc.c
+++ b/test/Analysis/malloc.c
@@ -760,6 +760,22 @@ void radar10978247_positive(int myValueSize) {
return;
}
+// <rdar://problem/11269741> Previously this triggered a false positive
+// because malloc() is known to return uninitialized memory and the binding
+// of 'o' to 'p->n' was not getting propertly handled. Now we report a leak.
+struct rdar11269741_a_t {
+ struct rdar11269741_b_t {
+ int m;
+ } n;
+};
+
+int rdar11269741(struct rdar11269741_b_t o)
+{
+ struct rdar11269741_a_t *p = (struct rdar11269741_a_t *) malloc(sizeof(*p));
+ p->n = o;
+ return p->n.m; // expected-warning {{leak}}
+}
+
// ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Below are the known false positives.
--
GitLab