github / github/codeql

False Negative : CloseSql.ql cannot detect bugs in the Try-Catch block.

未關閉
#21,393 2 則留言 0 個 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 檢視
question
主要語言
CodeQL
星號
10.1k
分支
2.1k
平均合併
2 天 15 小時
30 天內合併 PR
141

描述

**Version**
codeql 2.23.9
**Description of the issue**
When I used java/Likely Bugs/Resource Leaks/CloseSql.ql to check the following code, it correctly reported an issue of improper use of createStatement.
```java

import java.sql.Connection;
import java.sql.DriverManager;
import java.sql.SQLException;
import java.sql.Statement;
public class PosCase3 {
public void test() throws SQLException {
// Scenario 3: Primary resource assigned
Connection conn = DriverManager.getConnection("url", "user", "pass");
// Secondary created from primary, not assigned, not closed
conn.createStatement(); // [REPORTED LINE]
// Secondary Statement leak -> Positive detection.
}
}

```

However, when using CloseSql.ql to detect the following code, no bug were detected and no bug were reported.

```java
import java.sql.Connection;
import java.sql.DriverManager;
import java.sql.SQLException;
import java.sql.Statement;
import java.util.function.Supplier;
public class PosCase3_Var3 {
public void test() throws SQLException {
// Variant 3: Use Supplier to defer creation, then discard
Connection conn = DriverManager.getConnection("url", "user", "pass");
Supplier supplier = () -> {
try {
return conn.createStatement();
} catch (SQLException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
};
supplier.get(); // Statement created and leaked
}
}

```

貢獻指南

開啟貢獻指南

研究方向

Start by reading the Java resource-leak query in CloseSql.ql and compare its handling of the direct createStatement case with the Supplier example's try-catch block. Done means the query reports the discarded Statement created by supplier.get() while preserving the existing detection.

由索引模型根據 Issue 內容生成。

評估

技術堆疊
java
領域
security
Issue 類型
缺陷
難度
4/5
預估耗時
3-5 天
活躍度
停滯
描述清晰度
基本清楚
新手友好度
48/100

把新 issue 寄到你的電子郵件信箱

精選適合新手參與的 GitHub issue 摘要。