[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-23 Thread Alexander Kornienko via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
alexfh accepted this revision.
alexfh added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

LG with one nit.




Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:24
+
+bool HasCloseOnExecFlag(const Expr *Flags, const SourceManager ,
+const LangOptions ) {

nit: "Function names should be verb phrases (as they represent actions), and 
command-like function should be imperative. The name should be camel case, and 
start with a lower case letter (e.g. openFile() or isFoo())." 
(http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#name-types-functions-variables-and-enumerators-properly)


https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-19 Thread Yan Wang via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
yawanng updated this revision to Diff 103068.
yawanng marked 3 inline comments as done.

https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304

Files:
  clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/AndroidTidyModule.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.h
  clang-tidy/plugin/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp
  docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-file-open-flag.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
  test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
  unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt

Index: unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
===
--- unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
+++ unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
   clangFrontend
   clangLex
   clangTidy
+  clangTidyAndroidModule
   clangTidyGoogleModule
   clangTidyLLVMModule
   clangTidyMiscModule
Index: test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s android-file-open-flag %t
+
+#define O_RDWR 1
+#define O_EXCL 2
+#define __O_CLOEXEC 3
+#define O_CLOEXEC __O_CLOEXEC
+
+extern "C" int open(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int open64(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void a() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:26: warning: 'open' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:35: warning: 'open' should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void b() {
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:28: warning: 'open64' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:37: warning: 'open64' should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void c() {
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:31: warning: 'openat' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:40: warning: 'openat' should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void f() {
+  open("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:21: warning: 'open' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:23: warning: 'open64' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:26: warning: 'openat' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+
+  int flag = 3;
+  open("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+namespace i {
+int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void d() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+} // namespace i
+
+void e() {
+  open("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+class G {
+public:
+  int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+  void h() {
+open("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  }
+};
Index:

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-19 Thread Haojian Wu via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
hokein accepted this revision.
hokein added a comment.

The code looks good to me now, I'd wait to see whether @alexfh has further 
comments before submitting the patch. Thanks for your patience with the review 
;)




Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:61
+  SourceLocation EndLoc =
+  Lexer::getLocForEndOfToken(FlagArg->getLocEnd(), 0, SM, getLangOpts());
+

yawanng wrote:
> hokein wrote:
> > Instead of using getLangOpts(), you should use 
> > `Result.Context.getLangOpts()`.
> May I ask what's the difference between the `Result.Context.getLangOpts()` 
> and `getLangOpts()`? Does `Result.Context.getLangOpts()` have a longer 
> lifetime than `getLangOpts()`?
IMO they are the same fundamentally, except `Result.Context.getLangOpts()` can 
save a copy. We usually use `Result.Context.getLangOpts()` inside 
`ClangTidyCheck::check(const MatchFinder::MatchResult )`.



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:79
+std::pair ExpansionInfo = SM.getDecomposedLoc(Loc);
+auto MacroName =
+SM.getBufferData(ExpansionInfo.first)

yawanng wrote:
> hokein wrote:
> > You could use `Lexer::getImmediateMacroName(Loc, SM, Opts);` to get the 
> > marco name, or doesn't it work here?
> `getImmediateMacroName` sometimes cannot return the `O_CLOEXEC `, like
> 
> #define O_CLOEXEC  _O_CLOEXEC
> #define _O_CLOEXEC  1
> 
> `getImmediateMacroName` will return `_O_CLOEXEC`, whereas `O_CLOEXEC` is what 
> we need.  I change this to directly get the source text if it's a macro, 
> which seems to be simpler.
Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification!



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:22
+namespace {
+bool checkFlags(const Expr *Flags, const SourceManager ,
+const LangOptions ) {

`checkFlags` name is a bit of ambiguous, maybe rename it to 
"HasCloseOnExecFlag"?

Notice that you use the string "O_CLOEXEC" several times in the code,  I'd 
suggest to use a "CloseOnExecFlag" variable. 



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:33
+
+return (MacroName == "O_CLOEXEC");
+  }

Nit: The outermost () is not needed.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-15 Thread Yan Wang via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
yawanng updated this revision to Diff 102690.
yawanng added a comment.

Format change.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304

Files:
  clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/AndroidTidyModule.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.h
  clang-tidy/plugin/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp
  docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-file-open-flag.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
  test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
  unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt

Index: unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
===
--- unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
+++ unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
   clangFrontend
   clangLex
   clangTidy
+  clangTidyAndroidModule
   clangTidyGoogleModule
   clangTidyLLVMModule
   clangTidyMiscModule
Index: test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s android-file-open-flag %t
+
+#define O_RDWR 1
+#define O_EXCL 2
+#define __O_CLOEXEC 3
+#define O_CLOEXEC __O_CLOEXEC
+
+extern "C" int open(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int open64(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void a() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:26: warning: 'open' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:35: warning: 'open' should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void b() {
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:28: warning: 'open64' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:37: warning: 'open64' should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void c() {
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:31: warning: 'openat' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:40: warning: 'openat' should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void f() {
+  open("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:21: warning: 'open' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:23: warning: 'open64' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:26: warning: 'openat' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+
+  int flag = 3;
+  open("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+namespace i {
+int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void d() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+} // namespace i
+
+void e() {
+  open("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+class G {
+public:
+  int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+  void h() {
+open("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  }
+};
Index:

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-14 Thread Yan Wang via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
yawanng updated this revision to Diff 102577.
yawanng marked 7 inline comments as done.

https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304

Files:
  clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/AndroidTidyModule.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.h
  clang-tidy/plugin/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp
  clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py
  docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-file-open-flag.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
  test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
  unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt

Index: unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
===
--- unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
+++ unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
   clangFrontend
   clangLex
   clangTidy
+  clangTidyAndroidModule
   clangTidyGoogleModule
   clangTidyLLVMModule
   clangTidyMiscModule
Index: test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s android-file-open-flag %t
+
+#define O_RDWR 1
+#define O_EXCL 2
+#define __O_CLOEXEC 3
+#define O_CLOEXEC __O_CLOEXEC
+
+extern "C" int open(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int open64(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void a() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:26: warning: 'open' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:35: warning: 'open' should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void b() {
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:28: warning: 'open64' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:37: warning: 'open64' should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void c() {
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:31: warning: 'openat' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:40: warning: 'openat' should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void f() {
+  open("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:21: warning: 'open' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:23: warning: 'open64' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:26: warning: 'openat' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+
+  int flag = 3;
+  open("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+namespace i {
+int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void d() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+} // namespace i
+
+void e() {
+  open("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+class G {
+public:
+  int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+  void h() {
+open("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-14 Thread Yan Wang via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
yawanng added inline comments.



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:61
+  SourceLocation EndLoc =
+  Lexer::getLocForEndOfToken(FlagArg->getLocEnd(), 0, SM, getLangOpts());
+

hokein wrote:
> Instead of using getLangOpts(), you should use `Result.Context.getLangOpts()`.
May I ask what's the difference between the `Result.Context.getLangOpts()` and 
`getLangOpts()`? Does `Result.Context.getLangOpts()` have a longer lifetime 
than `getLangOpts()`?



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:79
+std::pair ExpansionInfo = SM.getDecomposedLoc(Loc);
+auto MacroName =
+SM.getBufferData(ExpansionInfo.first)

hokein wrote:
> You could use `Lexer::getImmediateMacroName(Loc, SM, Opts);` to get the marco 
> name, or doesn't it work here?
`getImmediateMacroName` sometimes cannot return the `O_CLOEXEC `, like

#define O_CLOEXEC  _O_CLOEXEC
#define _O_CLOEXEC  1

`getImmediateMacroName` will return `_O_CLOEXEC`, whereas `O_CLOEXEC` is what 
we need.  I change this to directly get the source text if it's a macro, which 
seems to be simpler.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-14 Thread Haojian Wu via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
hokein added inline comments.



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:28
+   hasParameter(1, hasType(isInteger())),
+   hasAnyName("open", "open64"))
+  .bind("funcDecl")))

I'd put the `hasAnyName` matcher in front of `hasParameter` which follows the 
order of function declaration.

The same below.



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:46
+  const Expr *FlagArg;
+  if ((MatchedCall = Result.Nodes.getNodeAs("openFn")))
+FlagArg = MatchedCall->getArg(1);

How about 

```
const Expr *FlagArg = nullptr;
if (const auto* OpenFnCall = Result.Nodes.getXXX()) {
  // ...
} else if (const auto* OpenAtFnCall = Result.Nodes.getXX()) {
  // ...
}
assert(FlagArg);
```
? 



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:61
+  SourceLocation EndLoc =
+  Lexer::getLocForEndOfToken(FlagArg->getLocEnd(), 0, SM, getLangOpts());
+

Instead of using getLangOpts(), you should use `Result.Context.getLangOpts()`.



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:67
+
+bool FileOpenFlagCheck::checkFlags(const Expr *Flags, const SourceManager ) 
{
+  bool IsFlagIn;

No need to be a class member method, put it inside this translation unit. 



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:79
+std::pair ExpansionInfo = SM.getDecomposedLoc(Loc);
+auto MacroName =
+SM.getBufferData(ExpansionInfo.first)

You could use `Lexer::getImmediateMacroName(Loc, SM, Opts);` to get the marco 
name, or doesn't it work here?



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:84
+
+IsFlagIn = (MacroName == "O_CLOEXEC");
+

I think you can use early return here. With that you don't need to maintain the 
flag variable `IsFlagIn`, so the code structure like:

```
if (isa<..>) {
   
return ...;
}

if (isa()) {
// ...
return ...;
}
retrun false;
```



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:88
+  // If it's a binary OR operation.
+  else if ((isa(Flags)) &&
+   (cast(Flags)->getOpcode() ==

You can use `if (const auto* BO = dyn_cast(Flags))`, so that 
you don't call `cast(Flags)` multiple times below.



Comment at: test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp:76
+void e() {
+  open("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:

I would add tests where `O_CLOEXEC` is not at the end of parameter 2 expression 
like `open("filename", O_RDWR |  O_CLOEXEC | O_EXCL)`.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-13 Thread Yan Wang via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
yawanng added inline comments.



Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-file-open-flag.rst:6
+
+A common source of security bugs has been code that opens file without using
+the ``O_CLOEXEC`` flag.  Without that flag, an opened sensitive file would

alexfh wrote:
> I'm not sure about using of "has been" here. Maybe just use present tense? 
> You might want to consult a nearby native speaker though. Alternatively, you 
> might want to rephrase this as "Opening files using POSIX ``open`` or similar 
> system calls without specifying the ``O_CLOEXEC`` flag is a common source of 
> security bugs."
I copied these sentences from the requests written by a native speaker, I 
think. But after talking with another native speaker, yes, present tense seems 
to be better here. Thanks :)


https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-09 Thread Yan Wang via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
yawanng updated this revision to Diff 102064.
yawanng marked 6 inline comments as done.

https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304

Files:
  clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/AndroidTidyModule.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.h
  clang-tidy/plugin/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp
  docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-file-open-flag.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
  test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
  unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt

Index: unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
===
--- unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
+++ unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
   clangFrontend
   clangLex
   clangTidy
+  clangTidyAndroidModule
   clangTidyGoogleModule
   clangTidyLLVMModule
   clangTidyMiscModule
Index: test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s android-file-open-flag %t
+
+#define O_RDWR 1
+#define O_EXCL 2
+#define __O_CLOEXEC 3
+#define O_CLOEXEC __O_CLOEXEC
+
+extern "C" int open(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int open64(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void a() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:26: warning: 'open' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:35: warning: 'open' should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void b() {
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:28: warning: 'open64' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:37: warning: 'open64' should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void c() {
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:31: warning: 'openat' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:40: warning: 'openat' should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void f() {
+  open("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:21: warning: 'open' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:23: warning: 'open64' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:26: warning: 'openat' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+
+  int flag = 3;
+  open("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+namespace i {
+int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void d() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+} // namespace i
+
+void e() {
+  open("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+class G {
+public:
+  int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+  void h() {
+open("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  }
+};
Index: docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
===
--- docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
+++ docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
 == =
 Name prefix

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-09 Thread Alexander Kornienko via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
alexfh requested changes to this revision.
alexfh added inline comments.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:60
+
+  LangOptions LangOpts = getLangOpts();
+  SourceRange FlagsRange(FlagArg->getLocStart(), FlagArg->getLocEnd());

No need for this variable, since it's just used once. Same below.



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp:62-65
+  StringRef FlagsText = Lexer::getSourceText(
+  CharSourceRange::getTokenRange(FlagsRange), SM, LangOpts);
+  std::string ReplacementText =
+  (llvm::Twine(FlagsText) + " | " + O_CLOEXEC).str();

No need to replace the text with itself. Just insert the part that is missing. 
The more local the changes - the fewer are chances of conflicts.



Comment at: clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.h:38
+
+  static constexpr const char *O_CLOEXEC = "O_CLOEXEC";
+};

This doesn't have to be a class member. It could be local to the function where 
it's used or to the .cc file.



Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-file-open-flag.rst:6
+
+A common source of security bugs has been code that opens file without using
+the ``O_CLOEXEC`` flag.  Without that flag, an opened sensitive file would

I'm not sure about using of "has been" here. Maybe just use present tense? You 
might want to consult a nearby native speaker though. Alternatively, you might 
want to rephrase this as "Opening files using POSIX ``open`` or similar system 
calls without specifying the ``O_CLOEXEC`` flag is a common source of security 
bugs."



Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-file-open-flag.rst:9
+remain open across a fork+exec to a lower-privileged SELinux domain, leaking
+that sensitive data Functions including ``open()``, ``openat()``, and
+``open64()`` must include ``O_CLOEXEC`` in their flags argument.

Missing period before "Functions".



Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-file-open-flag.rst:9
+remain open across a fork+exec to a lower-privileged SELinux domain, leaking
+that sensitive data Functions including ``open()``, ``openat()``, and
+``open64()`` must include ``O_CLOEXEC`` in their flags argument.

alexfh wrote:
> Missing period before "Functions".
Just "functions" is too broad. I'd say "`open`-like functions", "POSIX 
functions that open files" or something like that.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-07 Thread Yan Wang via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
yawanng updated this revision to Diff 101831.
yawanng marked an inline comment as done.

https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304

Files:
  clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/AndroidTidyModule.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.h
  clang-tidy/plugin/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp
  docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-file-open-flag.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
  test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
  unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt

Index: unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
===
--- unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
+++ unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
   clangFrontend
   clangLex
   clangTidy
+  clangTidyAndroidModule
   clangTidyGoogleModule
   clangTidyLLVMModule
   clangTidyMiscModule
Index: test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s android-file-open-flag %t
+
+#define O_RDWR 1
+#define O_EXCL 2
+#define __O_CLOEXEC 3
+#define O_CLOEXEC __O_CLOEXEC
+
+extern "C" int open(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int open64(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void a() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: open should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: open should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void b() {
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:22: warning: open64 should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:22: warning: open64 should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void c() {
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:25: warning: openat should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:25: warning: openat should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void f() {
+  open("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: open should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:22: warning: open64 should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:25: warning: openat should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+
+  int flag = 3;
+  open("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+namespace i {
+int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void d() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+} // namespace i
+
+void e() {
+  open("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+class G {
+public:
+  int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+  void h() {
+open("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  }
+};
Index: docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
===
--- docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
+++ docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
 == =
 Name prefixDescription

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-07 Thread Haojian Wu via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
hokein added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304#771493, @alexfh wrote:

> IIUC, these checks enforce a certain - Android-specific - way of using POSIX 
> APIs. I'm not sure if the recommendations are universally useful. Or am I 
> mistaken?


OK, that makes sense. I may miss some background context.




Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/index.rst:58
 == 
=
+``android``
 ``boost-`` Checks related to Boost library.

Add some words explaining this module?


https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-02 Thread Yan Wang via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
yawanng updated this revision to Diff 101279.
yawanng added a comment.

Format changes.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304

Files:
  clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/AndroidTidyModule.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.h
  clang-tidy/plugin/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp
  docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-file-open-flag.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
  test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
  unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt

Index: unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
===
--- unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
+++ unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
   clangFrontend
   clangLex
   clangTidy
+  clangTidyAndroidModule
   clangTidyGoogleModule
   clangTidyLLVMModule
   clangTidyMiscModule
Index: test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s android-file-open-flag %t
+
+#define O_RDWR 1
+#define O_EXCL 2
+#define __O_CLOEXEC 3
+#define O_CLOEXEC __O_CLOEXEC
+
+extern "C" int open(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int open64(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void a() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: open should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: open should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void b() {
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:22: warning: open64 should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:22: warning: open64 should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void c() {
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:25: warning: openat should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:25: warning: openat should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void f() {
+  open("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: open should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:22: warning: open64 should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:25: warning: openat should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+
+  int flag = 3;
+  open("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+namespace i {
+int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void d() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+} // namespace i
+
+void e() {
+  open("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+class G {
+public:
+  int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+  void h() {
+open("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  }
+};
Index: docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
===
--- docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
+++ docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
 == =
 Name prefixDescription

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-02 Thread Yan Wang via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
yawanng updated this revision to Diff 101267.

https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304

Files:
  clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/AndroidTidyModule.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.h
  clang-tidy/plugin/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp
  docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-file-open-flag.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
  test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
  unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt

Index: unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
===
--- unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
+++ unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
   clangFrontend
   clangLex
   clangTidy
+  clangTidyAndroidModule
   clangTidyGoogleModule
   clangTidyLLVMModule
   clangTidyMiscModule
Index: test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s android-file-open-flag %t
+
+#define O_RDWR 1
+#define O_EXCL 2
+#define __O_CLOEXEC 3
+#define O_CLOEXEC __O_CLOEXEC
+
+extern "C" int open(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int open64(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void a() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: open should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: open should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void b() {
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:22: warning: open64 should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:22: warning: open64 should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void c() {
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:25: warning: openat should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:25: warning: openat should use O_CLOEXEC where
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void f() {
+  open("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: open should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:22: warning: open64 should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:25: warning: openat should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+
+  int flag = 3;
+  open("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+namespace i {
+int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void d() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+} // namespace i
+
+void e() {
+  open("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+class G {
+public:
+  int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+  void h() {
+open("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  }
+};
Index: docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
===
--- docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
+++ docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
 == =
 Name prefixDescription
 ==

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-02 Thread Alexander Kornienko via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
alexfh added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304#771215, @hokein wrote:

> Thanks for the contributions.
>
> All your three checks are not android specific -- because they are checking 
> POSIX APIs (`open`, `creat`, `fopen`), which are more likely related to 
> POSIX. So personally, I'm +1 on a "posix" module, instead of "android", but 
> wait to see other reviewers' opinions before renaming it.


IIUC, these checks enforce a certain - Android-specific - way of using POSIX 
APIs. I'm not sure if the recommendations are universally useful. Or am I 
mistaken?


https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-06-02 Thread Haojian Wu via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
hokein added a comment.

Thanks for the contributions.

All your three checks are not android specific -- because they are checking 
POSIX APIs (`open`, `creat`, `fopen`), which are more likely related to POSIX. 
So personally, I'm +1 on a "posix" module, instead of "android", but wait to 
see other reviewers' opinions before renaming it.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D33304: [clang-tidy][Part1] Add a new module Android and three new checks.

2017-05-31 Thread Yan Wang via Phabricator via cfe-commits 
yawanng updated this revision to Diff 100934.
yawanng edited the summary of this revision.

https://reviews.llvm.org/D33304

Files:
  clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/AndroidTidyModule.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.cpp
  clang-tidy/android/FileOpenFlagCheck.h
  clang-tidy/plugin/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp
  docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-file-open-flag.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
  docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
  test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
  unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt

Index: unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
===
--- unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
+++ unittests/clang-tidy/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
   clangFrontend
   clangLex
   clangTidy
+  clangTidyAndroidModule
   clangTidyGoogleModule
   clangTidyLLVMModule
   clangTidyMiscModule
Index: test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/android-file-open-flag.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s android-file-open-flag %t
+
+#define O_RDWR 1
+#define O_EXCL 2
+#define __O_CLOEXEC 3
+#define O_CLOEXEC __O_CLOEXEC
+
+extern "C" int open(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int open64(const char *fn, int flags, ...);
+extern "C" int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void a() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: open should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: open should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void b() {
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:22: warning: open64 should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:22: warning: open64 should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void c() {
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:25: warning: openat should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_EXCL);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:25: warning: openat should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_CLOEXEC
+}
+
+void f() {
+  open("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: open should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  open64("filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:22: warning: open64 should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+  openat(0, "filename", 3);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:25: warning: openat should use O_CLOEXEC where possible. [android-file-open-flag]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: 3 | O_CLOEXEC
+
+  int flag = 3;
+  open("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", flag);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+namespace i {
+int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+void d() {
+  open("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+} // namespace i
+
+void e() {
+  open("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  open64("filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+}
+
+class G {
+public:
+  int open(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int open64(const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+  int openat(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags, ...);
+
+  void h() {
+open("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+open64("filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+openat(0, "filename", O_RDWR);
+// CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: warning:
+  }
+};
Index: docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
===
--- docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
+++ docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@