Frama-C-discuss mailing list archives

This page gathers the archives of the old Frama-C-discuss archives, that was hosted by Inria's gforge before its demise at the end of 2020. To search for mails newer than September 2020, please visit the page of the new mailing list on Renater.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Frama-c-discuss] Question about Impact analysis results

  • Subject: [Frama-c-discuss] Question about Impact analysis results
  • From: divya84 at gmail.com (Divya Muthukumaran)
  • Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:51:32 +0000
Hi All,

I was playing around with the impact analysis with the following example:
I have two variables conf_data and nonconf_data and I am tagging the
assignment to the former. I was expecting to see the call to and definition
of
 harmlessFunction() in the results but I get the following, which contains
the
assignment to nonconf_data and its use. Could someone explain to me why
they
get included? The command I am running is commented out at the beginning of
the
code.


[impact] impacted statements of stmt(s) 26 are:
           test-pointer-constraints.c:14 (sid 4): val = *array_D;
           test-pointer-constraints.c:15 (sid 6): return val;
           test-pointer-constraints.c:24 (sid 13): tmp =
verboseLog(array_C);
           test-pointer-constraints.c:24 (sid 14): return tmp;
           test-pointer-constraints.c:34 (sid 26): *(conf_data + i) =
Frama_C_interval
                                                   (0,9);
*           test-pointer-constraints.c:38 (sid 34): *(nonconf_data + i) =
Frama_C_interval*
*                                                   (0,9);*
*           test-pointer-constraints.c:42 (sid 37): val =
harmfulFunction(nonconf_data);*
           test-pointer-constraints.c:63 (sid 48): tmp = main(3,argv);
[impact] analysis done


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include
"__fc_builtin.h"/*frama-c -main analysis_main -impact-pragma main
test-pointer-constraints.c -val -val-builtins-auto
-no-val-malloc-returns-null -context-width 3 -slevel 11 -impact-print
> test.log*/int Frama_C_interval(int min, int max); int verboseLog(int
* inputArray) {        int * array_D = inputArray;         int val =
*array_D;        return val; } int * harmlessFunction(int * array_a) {
    return array_a;  } int harmfulFunction(int * array_B) {    int *
array_C = array_B;     return verboseLog(array_C); } int main(int
argc, char ** argv) {    int * conf_data = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int)
* 10); /* Data is sensitive */      int * nonconf_data = (int *)
malloc(sizeof(int) * 10); /* Data is not-sensitive */      int i = 0;
  for(i=0; i < 10; i++) {	//@ impact pragma stmt;         *(conf_data
+ i) = Frama_C_interval(0,9);    }     for(i=0; i < 10; i++) {
 *(nonconf_data  + i) = Frama_C_interval(0,9);     }
harmlessFunction(conf_data);     int val =
harmfulFunction(nonconf_data);     return 0; } /* Ignore this
function. Fake main for Frama-c */ int analysis_main(void) {    char
*argv[4];    char arg1[2];    char arg2[2];    arg1[0]='0';
arg1[1]=0;    arg2[0]='1';    arg2[1]=0;    argv[0]="Analyzed
application";    argv[1]=arg1;    argv[2]=arg2;    argv[3]=NULL;
return main(3, argv);}
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/frama-c-discuss/attachments/20170127/c9268a0a/attachment-0001.html>