X Tutup
Skip to content

Add lifetime package#1024

Open
knewbury01 wants to merge 10 commits intogithub:mainfrom
knewbury01:knewbury01/Lifetime
Open

Add lifetime package#1024
knewbury01 wants to merge 10 commits intogithub:mainfrom
knewbury01:knewbury01/Lifetime

Conversation

@knewbury01
Copy link
Collaborator

@knewbury01 knewbury01 commented Feb 3, 2026

Description

add rules for lifetime package, two shared rules, one with improvements upon previous, one as simple shared

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-11-6-2
    • RULE-6-8-3
  • 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 format of shared queries (not the .qll file, the
.ql file that imports it) is valid by running them within VS Code.

  • Confirmed

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!)

also adjust formatting on prev changenote which was incorrect
@knewbury01 knewbury01 self-assigned this Feb 3, 2026
Copy link
Collaborator

@MichaelRFairhurst MichaelRFairhurst left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The test cases look great Kristen, thank you!

AllocatedObjectIdentity() {
this.(FunctionCall).getTarget().(AllocationFunction).requiresDealloc()
or
this = any(NewOrNewArrayExpr new | not exists(new.getPlacementPointer()))
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

borrowed this from here

@knewbury01 knewbury01 marked this pull request as ready for review March 10, 2026 16:38
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 10, 2026 16:38
Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

This PR adds a new "Lifetime" rule package for MISRA C++ 2023, implementing two new rules: RULE-11-6-2 (reading uninitialized objects) and RULE-6-8-3 (automatic storage assigned to wider lifetime). It also enhances the shared ReadOfUninitializedMemory query to detect uninitialized reads through new expressions without value initialization, and extends the AllocatedObjectIdentity class to recognize new/new[] expressions as allocated storage.

Changes:

  • Adds the Lifetime rule package with RULE-11-6-2 and RULE-6-8-3, including exclusion metadata, query files, test references, and supporting infrastructure.
  • Enhances the ReadOfUninitializedMemory shared library to detect uninitialized memory accessed via new expressions (without value initialization), incorporating a copied InitializationFunctions.qll from the CodeQL standard library.
  • Extends AllocatedObjectIdentity in CppObjects.qll to include new/new[] expressions (excluding placement new) for storage duration tracking.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 17 out of 17 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

Show a summary per file
File Description
rules.csv Updates RULE-11-6-2 to reference the Lifetime package
rule_packages/cpp/Lifetime.json New rule package definition for RULE-11-6-2 and RULE-6-8-3
cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/exclusions/cpp/Lifetime.qll Autogenerated exclusion module for Lifetime package
cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/exclusions/cpp/RuleMetadata.qll Integrates Lifetime package into rule metadata
cpp/misra/src/rules/RULE-11-6-2/ValueOfAnObjectMustNotBeReadBeforeItHasBeenSet.ql New query for RULE-11-6-2 using shared ReadOfUninitializedMemory
cpp/misra/src/rules/RULE-6-8-3/AutomaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetime.ql New query for RULE-6-8-3 using shared DoNotCopyAddressOfAutoStorage
cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/rules/readofuninitializedmemory/ReadOfUninitializedMemory.qll Enhanced to handle new without value init
cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/rules/readofuninitializedmemory/InitializationFunctions.qll Copied from CodeQL standard library for init function tracking
cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/lifetimes/CppObjects.qll Extended AllocatedObjectIdentity for new/new[] expressions
cpp/common/test/rules/readofuninitializedmemory/test.cpp Added test cases for new uninitialized memory scenarios
cpp/common/test/rules/readofuninitializedmemory/ReadOfUninitializedMemory.expected Updated expected results for new test cases
cpp/common/test/rules/donotcopyaddressofautostorageobjecttootherobject/test.cpp Added test cases for auto-storage address escape
cpp/common/test/rules/donotcopyaddressofautostorageobjecttootherobject/DoNotCopyAddressOfAutoStorageObjectToOtherObject.expected Updated expected results for new test cases
cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-6-8-3/AutomaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetime.testref Test reference for RULE-6-8-3
cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-11-6-2/ValueOfAnObjectMustNotBeReadBeforeItHasBeenSet.testref Test reference for RULE-11-6-2
change_notes/2026-02-03-uninitialized-mem-improve.md Change note for shared query modifications
.vscode/tasks.json Added Lifetime to VS Code task configuration
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/rules/readofuninitializedmemory/ReadOfUninitializedMemory.qll:207

  • Typo in docstring: "Get a access" should be "Gets an access".
   * Get a access of the variable that is assumed to initialize the variable.

Comment on lines +21 to +29
module AutomaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetimeConfig implements
DoNotCopyAddressOfAutoStorageObjectToOtherObjectConfigSig
{
Query getQuery() {
result = LifetimePackage::automaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetimeQuery()
}
}

import DoNotCopyAddressOfAutoStorageObjectToOtherObject<AutomaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetimeConfig>
Copy link

Copilot AI Mar 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The query references DoNotCopyAddressOfAutoStorageObjectToOtherObjectConfigSig (line 21) and uses DoNotCopyAddressOfAutoStorageObjectToOtherObject<...> as a parameterized module (line 25), but the shared library at cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/rules/donotcopyaddressofautostorageobjecttootherobject/DoNotCopyAddressOfAutoStorageObjectToOtherObject.qll does not define any ConfigSig signature module or parameterized module. It only uses the abstract class pattern (like M7-5-2/AssignmentOfEscapingAutoStorage.ql does). This will fail to compile. The query should either use the existing abstract class pattern (extending DoNotCopyAddressOfAutoStorageObjectToOtherObjectSharedQuery), or the .qll file needs to be refactored to support the parameterized module pattern.

Suggested change
module AutomaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetimeConfig implements
DoNotCopyAddressOfAutoStorageObjectToOtherObjectConfigSig
{
Query getQuery() {
result = LifetimePackage::automaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetimeQuery()
}
}
import DoNotCopyAddressOfAutoStorageObjectToOtherObject<AutomaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetimeConfig>
/**
* Concrete query configuration for RULE-6-8-3 using the shared
* DoNotCopyAddressOfAutoStorageObjectToOtherObject infrastructure.
*/
class AutomaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetimeQuery
extends DoNotCopyAddressOfAutoStorageObjectToOtherObjectSharedQuery
{
AutomaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetimeQuery() {
this = LifetimePackage::automaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetimeQuery()
}
}

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
cpp,MISRA-C++-2023,RULE-11-3-2,Yes,Advisory,Decidable,Single Translation Unit,The declaration of an object should contain no more than two levels of pointer indirection,A5-0-3,ImportMisra23,Import,
cpp,MISRA-C++-2023,RULE-11-6-1,Yes,Advisory,Decidable,Single Translation Unit,All variables should be initialized,,Declarations2,Easy,
cpp,MISRA-C++-2023,RULE-11-6-2,Yes,Mandatory,Undecidable,System,The value of an object must not be read before it has been set,A8-5-0,Lifetime,Very Hard,
cpp,MISRA-C++-2023,RULE-11-6-2,Yes,Mandatory,Undecidable,System,The value of an object must not be read before it has been set,A8-5-0,Lifetime,Import
Copy link

Copilot AI Mar 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The RULE-11-6-2 row is missing a trailing comma after Import. All other rows in the CSV consistently end with a comma after the difficulty field (e.g., line 929: ...,Import,). This could cause parsing issues with downstream tools that process the CSV.

Suggested change
cpp,MISRA-C++-2023,RULE-11-6-2,Yes,Mandatory,Undecidable,System,The value of an object must not be read before it has been set,A8-5-0,Lifetime,Import
cpp,MISRA-C++-2023,RULE-11-6-2,Yes,Mandatory,Undecidable,System,The value of an object must not be read before it has been set,A8-5-0,Lifetime,Import,

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
int *p3 = new int(1);
*p3 = *p2; // NON_COMPLIANT -- the pointee of p2 has not been
// initialized
*p3; // NON_COMPLIANT[FALSE_NEGATIVE] -- the pointee of p3 has be overridden
Copy link

Copilot AI Mar 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Typo in comment: "has be overridden" should be "has been overridden".

Suggested change
*p3; // NON_COMPLIANT[FALSE_NEGATIVE] -- the pointee of p3 has be overridden
*p3; // NON_COMPLIANT[FALSE_NEGATIVE] -- the pointee of p3 has been overridden

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.

int *i3;

if (i3 == i1) { // NON_COMPLIANT
Copy link

Copilot AI Mar 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Line 141 is annotated with a single // NON_COMPLIANT comment but produces two alerts in the expected file (lines 8-9): one for i3 (a genuinely uninitialized pointer) and one for i1 (initialized with new int — the pointer value itself is valid, only the pointee is uninitialized). The second alert for i1 in a pointer comparison i3 == i1 appears to be a false positive — comparing a pointer initialized via new int doesn't read uninitialized memory. The annotation should be updated to reflect this, for example by marking one result as NON_COMPLIANT and the other as COMPLIANT[FALSE_POSITIVE], or by adding a comment explaining the two alerts.

Copilot generated this review using guidance from repository custom instructions.

/** Get a read of the variable. */
/**
* Gets an access of the variable `v` which is not used as an lvalue, and not used as an argument
Copy link

Copilot AI Mar 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The docstring references "the variable v" but there is no parameter v in this method. Since this is a method on UninitializedVariable, it should reference "this variable" or just "the variable" instead.

This issue also appears on line 207 of the same file.

Suggested change
* Gets an access of the variable `v` which is not used as an lvalue, and not used as an argument
* Gets an access of this variable which is not used as an lvalue, and not used as an argument

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
Comment on lines +265 to +266
or
this = any(NewOrNewArrayExpr new | not exists(new.getPlacementPointer()))
Copy link

Copilot AI Mar 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The class docstring says "An object identified by a call to malloc" but now also includes new/new[] expressions (excluding placement new). The documentation should be updated to reflect the expanded scope, e.g. "An object identified by a dynamic allocation expression (malloc, new, new[])."

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
we will need to change these cases in batches
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

X Tutup