To get a trial key
fill out the form below
Team License (a basic version)
Enterprise License (an extended version)
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Request our prices
New License
License Renewal
--Select currency--
USD
EUR
GBP
RUB
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Free PVS-Studio license for Microsoft MVP specialists
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

I am interested to try it on the platforms:
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Message submitted.

Your message has been sent. We will email you at


If you haven't received our response, please do the following:
check your Spam/Junk folder and click the "Not Spam" button for our message.
This way, you won't miss messages from our team in the future.

>
>
>
An interesting bug in Entity Framework

An interesting bug in Entity Framework

Mar 23 2017

Recently, we started a new hobby that is also a way to spread the word about our static code analyzer PVS-Studio. We check open-source projects and release patches with fixes. Today I would like to speak about one interesting bug that I found in Entity Framework project.

I have already sent a patch to fix this error. But enough talking. The analyzer issued 2 warnings for one string:

  • V3014 It is likely that a wrong variable is being incremented inside the 'for' operator. Consider reviewing 'i'. EFCore ExpressionEqualityComparer.cs 214
  • V3015 It is likely that a wrong variable is being compared inside the 'for' operator. Consider reviewing 'i' EFCore ExpressionEqualityComparer.cs 214

This is actually not a rare case when the analyzer issues 2 or even 3 warnings for one line. The thing is that the incorrect code can be anomalous from several points of view at the same time.

Let us consider the code:

var memberInitExpression = (MemberInitExpression)obj;
....
for (var i = 0; i < memberInitExpression.Bindings.Count; i++)
{
  var memberBinding = memberInitExpression.Bindings[i];
  .... 
  switch (memberBinding.BindingType)
  {
    case ....
    case MemberBindingType.ListBinding:
      var memberListBinding = (MemberListBinding)memberBinding;
      for(var j=0; i < memberListBinding.Initializers.Count; i++)
      {
        hashCode += (hashCode * 397) ^
          GetHashCode(memberListBinding.Initializers[j].Arguments);
      }
      break;
    ....
   }
}

What's going on here? As we can see, we have 2 loops. In the first we see a counter i to iterate the list memberInitExpression.Bindings, in the second - a counter j to iterate the list memberListBinding.Initializers. But for some reason the second loop uses the counter from the first loop. It seemed very suspicious to me, so I decided to write a small unit test to check if it really is an error or just a tricky algorithm of the program.

The code of the unit test:

[ConditionalFact]
public void Compare_member_init_expressions_by_hash_code()
{
    MethodInfo addMethod = typeof(List<string>).GetMethod("Add");

    MemberListBinding bindingMessages = Expression.ListBind(
        typeof(Node).GetProperty("Messages"),
        Expression.ElementInit(addMethod, Expression.Constant(
          "Greeting from PVS-Studio developers!"))
    );

    MemberListBinding bindingDescriptions = Expression.ListBind(
        typeof(Node).GetProperty("Descriptions"),
        Expression.ElementInit(addMethod, Expression.Constant(
          "PVS-Studio is a static code analyzer for C, C++ and C#."))
    );

    Expression query1 = Expression.MemberInit(
        Expression.New(typeof(Node)),
        new List<MemberBinding>() {
          bindingMessages                    // One member
        }
    );

    Expression query2 = Expression.MemberInit(
        Expression.New(typeof(Node)),
        new List<MemberBinding>() {
          bindingMessages,                  // Two members
          bindingDescriptions
        }
    );

    var comparer = new ExpressionEqualityComparer();
    var key1Hash = comparer.GetHashCode(query1);
    var key2Hash = comparer.GetHashCode(query2);

    // The hash codes for both expressions 
    // were the same before my edit
    Assert.NotEqual(key1Hash, key2Hash);      // <=
}

My expectations were confirmed. It is a real error. The thing is that when comparing 2 expressions, only 2 first elements of the collections have always been compared, which led to incorrect results for different expressions with identical first elements. Taking into account that Entity Framework works with expressions very closely, and its main aim is transforming lambdas and Linq requests to the SQL requests, I think it should not be hard to guess what results could have such a serious bug.

According to Common Weakness Enumeration, the bug found can be classified as CWE-670 (Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation). It is not clear if this code weakness can be exploited as a vulnerability, but the bug is quite serious. This is a good demonstration that the PVS-Studio analyzer can be used to search for potential vulnerabilities. In fact, it has always been able to do this, we just haven't focused on this aspect of our analyzer. More details on this topic can be found in the article "PVS-Studio: searching security defects".

Popular related articles
How PVS-Studio Proved to Be More Attentive Than Three and a Half Programmers

Date: Oct 22 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

Just like other static analyzers, PVS-Studio often produces false positives. What you are about to read is a short story where I'll tell you how PVS-Studio proved, just one more time, to be more atte…
PVS-Studio ROI

Date: Jan 30 2019

Author: Andrey Karpov

Occasionally, we're asked a question, what monetary value the company will receive from using PVS-Studio. We decided to draw up a response in the form of an article and provide tables, which will sho…
Technologies used in the PVS-Studio code analyzer for finding bugs and potential vulnerabilities

Date: Nov 21 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

A brief description of technologies used in the PVS-Studio tool, which let us effectively detect a large number of error patterns and potential vulnerabilities. The article describes the implementati…
PVS-Studio for Java

Date: Jan 17 2019

Author: Andrey Karpov

In the seventh version of the PVS-Studio static analyzer, we added support of the Java language. It's time for a brief story of how we've started making support of the Java language, how far we've co…
The Ultimate Question of Programming, Refactoring, and Everything

Date: Apr 14 2016

Author: Andrey Karpov

Yes, you've guessed correctly - the answer is "42". In this article you will find 42 recommendations about coding in C++ that can help a programmer avoid a lot of errors, save time and effort. The au…
The way static analyzers fight against false positives, and why they do it

Date: Mar 20 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

In my previous article I wrote that I don't like the approach of evaluating the efficiency of static analyzers with the help of synthetic tests. In that article, I give the example of a code fragment…
The Last Line Effect

Date: May 31 2014

Author: Andrey Karpov

I have studied many errors caused by the use of the Copy-Paste method, and can assure you that programmers most often tend to make mistakes in the last fragment of a homogeneous code block. I have ne…
The Evil within the Comparison Functions

Date: May 19 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

Perhaps, readers remember my article titled "Last line effect". It describes a pattern I've once noticed: in most cases programmers make an error in the last line of similar text blocks. Now I want t…
Free PVS-Studio for those who develops open source projects

Date: Dec 22 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

On the New 2019 year's eve, a PVS-Studio team decided to make a nice gift for all contributors of open-source projects hosted on GitHub, GitLab or Bitbucket. They are given free usage of PVS-Studio s…
Appreciate Static Code Analysis!

Date: Oct 16 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

I am really astonished by the capabilities of static code analysis even though I am one of the developers of PVS-Studio analyzer myself. The tool surprised me the other day as it turned out to be sma…

Comments (0)

Next comments
This website uses cookies and other technology to provide you a more personalized experience. By continuing the view of our web-pages you accept the terms of using these files. If you don't want your personal data to be processed, please, leave this site.
Learn More →
Accept