xazax.hun added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/cert/LimitedRandomnessCheck.cpp:22-23
@@ +21,4 @@
+ Finder->addMatcher(
+ declRefExpr(hasDeclaration(functionDecl(namedDecl(hasName("::rand")),
+ parameterCountIs(0))))
+ .bind("randomGenerator"),
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Prazek wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > Prazek wrote:
> > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > This should be looking at a callExpr() rather than a declRefExpr(),
> > > > > should it not?
> > > > I was also thinking about this, but this is actually better, because it
> > > > will also match with binding rand with function pointer.
> > > True, but a DeclRefExpr doesn't mean it's a function call. Binding the
> > > function is not contrary to the CERT rule, just calling it. For instance,
> > > the following pathological case will be caught by this check:
> > > ```
> > > if (std::rand) {}
> > > ```
> > > The behavior of this check should be consistent with cert-env33-c, which
> > > only looks at calls. (If we really care about bound functions, we'd need
> > > flow control analysis, and I think that's overkill for both of those
> > > checks, but wouldn't be opposed to someone writing the flow analysis if
> > > they really wanted to.)
> > It would indeed fire on this pathological case, but I don't think we should
> > care about cases like this, because no one is writing code like this (and
> > if he would then it would probably be a bug).
> > I don't think that there is much code that binds pointer to std::rand
> > either, but I think it would be good to display warning for this, because
> > even if the function would be never called, then it means that this is a
> > bug, and if it would be called then it would be nice to tell user that rand
> > might be used here.
> >
> > Anyway I don't oppose for changing it to callExpr, but I think it is better
> > this way.
> > It would indeed fire on this pathological case, but I don't think we should
> > care about cases like this, because no one is writing code like this (and
> > if he would then it would probably be a bug).
>
> It would be a known false-positive for a check designed to conform to a
> particular coding standard. When deviations have come up in the past for
> various coding standards, we've added an option to enable the additional
> functionality, which I don't think would be reasonable in this case.
> Alternatively, the CERT guideline could be modified, but that is unlikely to
> occur because binding the function pointer is not a security concern (only
> calling the function).
In case you let binding to function pointer you introduce potential false
negatives which is worse in this case in my opinion.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22346
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
