From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 45680385801A; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 15:03:17 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 45680385801A From: "dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug analyzer/99671] New: RFE: analyzer could complain about ptr derefs that occur before the ptr is checked Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 15:03:17 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: analyzer X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter target_milestone Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 15:03:17 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99671 Bug ID: 99671 Summary: RFE: analyzer could complain about ptr derefs that occur before the ptr is checked Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: analyzer Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- See e.g. bug 80049, where we have code of the form expr =3D p->field; [...] if (p) ... We could complain that 'p' has already been dereferenced before the check. This might be implementable using sm-malloc: the "p->field" dereference transitions "p" to non-null, and we could thus complain at the "if (p)" on non-null if the transition was due to such a transition (rather than being known to be non-null) - or perhaps a new state "assumed-non-null"? PVS Studio complains about this: https://www.viva64.com/en/w/v595/ https://www.viva64.com/en/examples/v595/ using CWE 476: https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/476.html=