Michaelrfairhurst/implement types2 package

[MichaelRFairhurst]

Description

Implement Types2 package, with rules RULE-7-5 and RULE-7-6

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-7-5
  • RULE-7-6
• 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!)

[MichaelRFairhurst]

Seeing false positives that I don't understand here:

https://boringssl.googlesource.com/boringssl/+/master/third_party/fiat/curve25519_64.h#940

Can't reproduce them locally. Perhaps a gcc issue, will try linux.

[MichaelRFairhurst]

The issue from the previous comment has been handled, and a test case added for it.

[MichaelRFairhurst]

Talking to Vincent, preference seems to be to disallow nesting macros here, e.g., INT8_C(INT8_MAX). Added that logic.

That discussion also prompted me to fully realizing that INT64_C(-9223372036854775807 -1) is risky and should not be allowed. The better option would be INT64_C(-9223372036854775807) - 1. This is because INT64_C(c) is defined as c ## LL, so the former pattern expands to -9223372036854775807 -1LL which is unexpected and could be dangerous. I removed this exception.

[lcartey]

A couple of stylistic suggestions, and noting an edge case on int type. Otherwise looks good!