Skip to content

Conversation

@jketema
Copy link
Contributor

@jketema jketema commented Mar 21, 2023

No description provided.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the C++ label Mar 21, 2023
module Internal {
class Conf1 extends DataFlow::Configuration {
Conf1() { this = "Conf1" }
private module Config1 implements DataFlow::StateConfigSig {

Check warning

Code scanning / CodeQL

Data flow configuration module naming

Modules implementing a data flow configuration should end in `Config`.
exists(Configuration conf, DataFlow::PathNode source1 |
conf.isSourcePair(source1.getNode(), source1.getState(), source, state) and
any(Conf1 c).hasFlowPath(source1, _)
module Config2 implements DataFlow::StateConfigSig {

Check warning

Code scanning / CodeQL

Data flow configuration module naming

Modules implementing a data flow configuration should end in `Config`.
MathiasVP
MathiasVP previously approved these changes Mar 21, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@MathiasVP MathiasVP left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

@jketema
Copy link
Contributor Author

jketema commented Mar 21, 2023

Should I run DCA on this with memory-corruption-queries.qls?

@MathiasVP
Copy link
Contributor

Should I run DCA on this with memory-corruption-queries.qls?

Yes, please. I haven't used that suite in this quarter, but I assume it still works 🤞

Copy link

@github-advanced-security github-advanced-security bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

CodeQL found more than 10 potential problems in the proposed changes. Check the Files changed tab for more details.

MathiasVP
MathiasVP previously approved these changes Mar 22, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@MathiasVP MathiasVP left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! I especially like that last commit 😍.

@jketema
Copy link
Contributor Author

jketema commented Mar 22, 2023

I did see a slow-down on the first DCA experiment I ran. Re-running now to see if that still occurs with the latest commit.

Config::isBarrier2(node)
}

predicate isBarrier1 = Config::isBarrier1/1;

Check warning

Code scanning / CodeQL

Dead code

This code is never used, and it's not publicly exported.

predicate isBarrier1 = Config::isBarrier1/1;

predicate isBarrier2 = Config::isBarrier2/1;

Check warning

Code scanning / CodeQL

Dead code

This code is never used, and it's not publicly exported.

predicate isBarrierOut2 = Config::isBarrierOut2/1;

predicate isAdditionalFlowStep1 = Config::isAdditionalFlowStep1/2;

Check warning

Code scanning / CodeQL

Dead code

This code is never used, and it's not publicly exported.
Config::isAdditionalFlowStep1(node1, node2)
}

predicate isAdditionalFlowStep2 = Config::isAdditionalFlowStep2/2;

Check warning

Code scanning / CodeQL

Dead code

This code is never used, and it's not publicly exported.
MathiasVP
MathiasVP previously approved these changes Mar 24, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@MathiasVP MathiasVP left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. I included a small suggestion, but since this is already a major performance boost compared to the prior DCA run I think it's fine to merge this as-is if DCA comes back happy 🎉.

@jketema
Copy link
Contributor Author

jketema commented Apr 6, 2023

DCA looks somewhat better after the join-order fixes and a rebase. Still maybe a bit too much slowdown?

@MathiasVP
Copy link
Contributor

DCA looks somewhat better after the join-order fixes and a rebase. Still maybe a bit too much slowdown?

Fantastic! There may be a very small slowdown, but I don't think this is something that should block the merge.

@jketema jketema marked this pull request as ready for review April 6, 2023 17:41
@jketema jketema requested a review from a team as a code owner April 6, 2023 17:41
@jketema jketema added the no-change-note-required This PR does not need a change note label Apr 6, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@MathiasVP MathiasVP left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

@jketema jketema merged commit 5ee9711 into github:main Apr 6, 2023
@jketema jketema deleted the product-configsig branch April 6, 2023 17:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

C++ no-change-note-required This PR does not need a change note

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants