Package Declarations1

[knewbury01]

Description

Package Declarations1

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:
  • DCL37-C
  • DCL31-C
  • RULE-21-2
  • RULE-5-4
  • RULE-5-1
• Queries have been modified for the following rules:
  • rule number here

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!)

[knewbury01]

Notes DCL37-C

I did not implement the future library directions restrictions for this rule, and described that in the implementation notes, however if it seems like these would be crucial, I can add those

[knewbury01]

Notes DCL31-C

SOLVED: not supporting gcc currently - "check for implicit function declarations" will not be checked by this rule.

currently not supporting "check for implicit function declarations" portion of the rule, only supporting "Omission of type specifiers" portion

I need a reminder for what to do if our test setup doesnt compile a certain test, but other compilers do
the following:

int main(void) {
  for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
    /* int malloc() assumed */
    char *ptr = (char *)malloc(0x10000000);
    *ptr = 'a';
  }
  return 0;
}

compiles with: gcc -c test.c
with
gcc-11 (Homebrew GCC 11.3.0) 11.3.0

but codeql test run --show-extractor-output --search-path . c/cert/test/rules/DCL31C/DeclareIdentifiersBeforeUsingThem.qlref fails (for clang)

[knewbury01]

RULE-5-1 notes

some perf issue maybe exists for this one currently, related to joining on names I think, but was hoping that external identifiers subclass was a small enough set to avoid this

[lcartey]

I made a first pass review, and added a few comments. I will take a further look tomorrow morning, but it's already looking good. 👍

[lcartey]

Review completed. Good job overall. Only major feedback was on Rule 5.1, which I think needs some refining to handle performance issues, mixed C/C++ code and edge cases around multiple declarations.

[knewbury01]

"Ok, let's add an issue to this repository to investigate using a different data source for the C standard library names."

done

[lcartey]

Sorry, just a couple more things! Thank you!

[lcartey]

Looks good, thanks for the changes!