Add lifetime package by knewbury01 · Pull Request #1024 · github/codeql-coding-standards

knewbury01 · 2026-02-03T21:42:55Z

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

cpp/common/test/rules/readofuninitializedmemory/test.cpp

MichaelRFairhurst

The test cases look great Kristen, thank you!

knewbury01 · 2026-03-10T16:37:15Z

cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/lifetimes/CppObjects.qll

  AllocatedObjectIdentity() {
    this.(FunctionCall).getTarget().(AllocationFunction).requiresDealloc()
+    or
+    this = any(NewOrNewArrayExpr new | not exists(new.getPlacementPointer()))


borrowed this from here

…odeql-coding-standards into knewbury01/Lifetime

Copilot

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.

Copilot · 2026-03-10T16:49:23Z

cpp/misra/src/rules/RULE-6-8-3/AutomaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetime.ql

+module AutomaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetimeConfig implements
+  DoNotCopyAddressOfAutoStorageObjectToOtherObjectConfigSig
+{
+  Query getQuery() {
+    result = LifetimePackage::automaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetimeQuery()
+  }
+}
+
+import DoNotCopyAddressOfAutoStorageObjectToOtherObject<AutomaticStorageAssignedToObjectGreaterLifetimeConfig>


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 · 2026-03-10T16:49:24Z

rules.csv

 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


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 · 2026-03-10T16:49:24Z

cpp/common/test/rules/readofuninitializedmemory/test.cpp

+  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


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 · 2026-03-10T16:49:24Z

cpp/common/test/rules/readofuninitializedmemory/test.cpp

+
+  int *i3;
+
+  if (i3 == i1) { // NON_COMPLIANT


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 · 2026-03-10T16:49:24Z

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


-  /** 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


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 · 2026-03-10T16:49:25Z

cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/lifetimes/CppObjects.qll

+    or
+    this = any(NewOrNewArrayExpr new | not exists(new.getPlacementPointer()))


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[])."

we will need to change these cases in batches

… or not

MichaelRFairhurst

OK, there's a lot of text here, but I think it boils down to actually pretty simple changes, its just complicated to think through and fully explain the implications of X vs Y 😕 I would have written less if I olny had more time! :)

I'm 100% glad that you pursued the approach. I think with a small few tweaks this implementation will be very precise, and handling new int without a major overhaul was absolutely the correct choice. 🎉

Let me know if anything here is unclear or if I missed anything!

MichaelRFairhurst · 2026-03-13T16:25:53Z

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

+      //or is a builtin type used with new operator but there is no value initialization as far as we can see
+      exists(Initializer i, NewExpr n |
+        i = getInitializer() and
+        n = i.getExpr() and
+        this.getUnspecifiedType().stripType() instanceof BuiltInType and
+        //ignore value init
+        not exists(n.getAChild())


Would this work?

Suggested change

//or is a builtin type used with new operator but there is no value initialization as far as we can see

exists(Initializer i, NewExpr n |

i = getInitializer() and

n = i.getExpr() and

this.getUnspecifiedType().stripType() instanceof BuiltInType and

//ignore value init

not exists(n.getAChild())

//or is a builtin type used with new operator but there is no value initialization as far as we can see

getInitializer().getExpr() instanceof NewNotInit

MichaelRFairhurst · 2026-03-13T16:30:02Z

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

  }
 }

+class NewNotInit extends NewExpr {


Can you add a comment explaining the limitations somewhere in this file, maybe here?

Something like, "Catches new int; as an expression that doesn't initialize its value. Note that the pointer returned has been initialized, but the pointee has not. In our analysis, we simply count x as uninitialized in x = new int for now, though a more thorough analysis might track the initialization of x is and *x separately."

MichaelRFairhurst · 2026-03-13T16:33:16Z

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

+    // Not a pointless read
+    not result = any(ExprStmt es).getExpr() and
+    // not involved in a new expr assignment since that does not define
+    not result instanceof VariableAccessOnLHSOfNonInitAssignment


Suggested change

not result instanceof VariableAccessOnLHSOfNonInitAssignment

not result = any(NonInitAssignment a).getLValue()

This class name is pretty complicated and makes the code seem maybe more challenging than it is.

MichaelRFairhurst · 2026-03-13T16:51:44Z

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

+    not result = any(AssignExpr a).getLValue() and
+    // Not passed to another initialization function
+    not exists(Call c, int j | j = c.getTarget().(InitializationFunction).initializedParameter() |
+      result = c.getArgument(j).(AddressOfExpr).getOperand()


Consider adding or result = c.getArgument(j), that would handle:

void f(int *p) { *p = 0; } void g() { int *p = new int; f(p); // compliant use(*p); // compliant }

In fact we might want to rely on .isRValueCategory() and not exists(Call ... | ... result = c.getArgument(j)).

In general, if x appears in &x, that should mean imply not .isRValueCategory() for x. So technically, int *p = &x would previously have not been considered a use and now will be.

Overall, isRValueCategory() should find only cases where x could not be initialized (only reads + copies). So we were already very conservative in what we consider a use.

The catch is that copying or reading x may be how someone initializes *x, such as in the above example with f(p). So with our new x+*x analysis, we can't guarantee isRValueCategory() for x means we don't initialize *x. Really any rvalue use could lead to initialization of *x.

We also don't want to lose the ability to analyze uninitialized pointers more generally (as in, int *p; f(p); which is never valid and can segfault, and the current query should catch).

Ultimately, for *x vs x:

if *x is used as an rvalue, that's problematic if x had a non-init new

otherwise, all uses of x as an rvalue require that x had any initializer

If x is used as an lvalue in *x, that's problematic if x had no initializer

All other lvalue uses of x are valid

It's always valid if *x is used as an lvalue if x had any initializer

Ultimately, I think it would probably be fine to say:

track x = new int as an "uninitialized variable"

count rvalue x as a use if not new int

count lvalue x as a use if used in *x and not new int

count rvalue *x as a use if has new int

don't count lvalue *x as a use in and of itself

MichaelRFairhurst · 2026-03-13T16:54:52Z

change_notes/2026-02-03-uninitialized-mem-improve.md

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+- `A8-5-0`, `EXP53-CPP`, `EXP33-C`, `RULE-9-1` - `MemoryNotInitializedBeforeItIsRead.ql`, `DoNotReadUninitializedMemory.ql`, `DoNotReadUninitializedMemory.ql`, `ObjectWithAutoStorageDurationReadBeforeInit.ql`:
+  - The queries listed now find uses of the operator 'new' where there is no value initialization provided.


can you note that we don't yet finely track the initialization/use of p vs *p

And add a line that we're now using an existing library to more finely track initialization through functions?

MichaelRFairhurst · 2026-03-13T17:44:09Z

cpp/common/test/rules/readofuninitializedmemory/test.cpp

+  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


Suggested change

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

use(p3);

use(*p3); // NON_COMPLIANT[FALSE_NEGATIVE] -- the pointee of p3 has be overridden

MichaelRFairhurst · 2026-03-13T17:44:31Z

cpp/common/test/rules/readofuninitializedmemory/test.cpp

+
+  int *p4;
+  p4 = new int;
+  *p4; // NON_COMPLIANT -- the pointee of p4 has not been


Suggested change

*p4; // NON_COMPLIANT -- the pointee of p4 has not been

use(*p4); // NON_COMPLIANT -- the pointee of p4 has not been

use(p4)

MichaelRFairhurst · 2026-03-13T17:45:03Z

rule_packages/cpp/Lifetime.json

+          "severity": "error",
+          "short_name": "ValueOfAnObjectMustNotBeReadBeforeItHasBeenSet",
+          "shared_implementation_short_name": "ReadOfUninitializedMemory",
+          "tags": [


Can you add an implementation_scope note that we don't track class member initialization?

MichaelRFairhurst · 2026-03-13T17:46:36Z

rule_packages/cpp/Lifetime.json

+        {
+          "description": "When storage durations are not compatible between assigned pointers it can lead to referring to objects outside of their lifetime, which is undefined behaviour.",
+          "kind": "problem",
+          "name": "Declare objects with appropriate storage durations",


Should the name be about assignments of different lifetimes instead of declarations?

MichaelRFairhurst · 2026-03-13T17:53:15Z

cpp/common/test/rules/readofuninitializedmemory/test.cpp

+  int *p4;
+  p4 = new int;
+  *p4; // NON_COMPLIANT -- the pointee of p4 has not been
+       // initialized


Can we add a test for initialization via a function?

int *p5; initialize(p5); // NON_COMPLIANT -- segfault int *p6 = new int; initialize(p6) // COMPLIANT

Add lifetime rule RULE-11-6-2

c29ca80

also adjust formatting on prev changenote which was incorrect

knewbury01 self-assigned this Feb 3, 2026

MichaelRFairhurst reviewed Feb 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

cpp/common/test/rules/readofuninitializedmemory/test.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

MichaelRFairhurst reviewed Feb 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

knewbury01 added 5 commits March 6, 2026 15:18

Merge branch 'main' into knewbury01/Lifetime

6956667

Add improvements to readofuninitializedmemory and testcase

9651122

Remove unnecessary import in readofuninitializedmemory

d0f2ede

Add shared query for RULE-6-8-3

1c610ee

Merge branch 'main' into knewbury01/Lifetime

a903b40

knewbury01 commented Mar 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

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

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of knewbury01 March 10, 2026 16:38 View session

knewbury01 added 3 commits March 10, 2026 12:38

Format query

1704bb8

Merge branch 'knewbury01/Lifetime' of https://github.com/knewbury01/c…

dd5ebd3

…odeql-coding-standards into knewbury01/Lifetime

Add another missing query format

ac21481

knewbury01 requested review from MichaelRFairhurst, jeongsoolee09 and mbaluda March 10, 2026 16:45

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

knewbury01 added 2 commits March 10, 2026 13:05

Revert shared rule to class not module since it shares with old style

b2e8f3a

we will need to change these cases in batches

Improve tests to be more clear on whether certain cases are supported…

1649c21

… or not

mbaluda removed their request for review March 12, 2026 16:58

MichaelRFairhurst requested changes Mar 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

-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()
+  }
+}

	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,

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

	* 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

		or
		this = any(NewOrNewArrayExpr new \| not exists(new.getPlacementPointer()))

	not result instanceof VariableAccessOnLHSOfNonInitAssignment
	not result = any(NonInitAssignment a).getLValue()

		@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
		- `A8-5-0`, `EXP53-CPP`, `EXP33-C`, `RULE-9-1` - `MemoryNotInitializedBeforeItIsRead.ql`, `DoNotReadUninitializedMemory.ql`, `DoNotReadUninitializedMemory.ql`, `ObjectWithAutoStorageDurationReadBeforeInit.ql`:
		- The queries listed now find uses of the operator 'new' where there is no value initialization provided. No newline at end of file

	*p3; // NON_COMPLIANT[FALSE_NEGATIVE] -- the pointee of p3 has be overridden
	use(p3);
	use(*p3); // NON_COMPLIANT[FALSE_NEGATIVE] -- the pointee of p3 has be overridden

	*p4; // NON_COMPLIANT -- the pointee of p4 has not been
	use(*p4); // NON_COMPLIANT -- the pointee of p4 has not been
	use(p4)

Conversation

knewbury01 commented Feb 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Change request type

Rules with added or modified queries

Release change checklist

Query development review checklist

Author

Reviewer

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

MichaelRFairhurst left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MichaelRFairhurst left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

knewbury01 commented Feb 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading