The C Standard, 6.7.3.2 paragraph 19 [ISO/IEC 9899:2024], states
There may be unnamed padding within a structure object, but not at its beginning. . . . There may be unnamed padding at the end of a structure or union.
Subclause 6.7.11, paragraph 10, states that
unnamed members of objects of structure and union type do not participate in initialization. Unnamed members of structure objects have indeterminate representation even after initialization.
The only exception is that padding bits are set to zero when a static or thread-local object is implicitly initialized (paragraph 11):
If an object that has static or thread storage duration is not initialized explicitly, or any object is initialized with an empty initializer, then it is subject to default initialization, which initializes an object as follows:
— if it is an aggregate, every member is initialized (recursively) according to these rules, and any padding is initialized to zero bits;
— if it is a union, the first named member is initialized (recursively) according to these rules, and any padding is initialized to zero bits.
Because these padding values are unspecified, attempting a byte-by-byte comparison between structures can lead to incorrect results [Summit 1995].
Noncompliant Code Example
In this noncompliant code example, memcmp()
is used to compare the contents of two structures, including any padding bytes:
#include <string.h> struct s { char c; int i; char buffer[13]; }; void compare(const struct s *left, const struct s *right) { if ((left && right) && (0 == memcmp(left, right, sizeof(struct s)))) { /* ... */ } }
Compliant Solution
In this compliant solution, all of the fields are compared manually to avoid comparing any padding bytes:
#include <string.h> struct s { char c; int i; char buffer[13]; }; void compare(const struct s *left, const struct s *right) { if ((left && right) && (left->c == right->c) && (left->i == right->i) && (0 == memcmp(left->buffer, right->buffer, 13))) { /* ... */ } }
Exceptions
EXP42-C-EX1: A structure can be defined such that the members are aligned properly or the structure is packed using implementation-specific packing instructions. This is true only when the members' data types have no padding bits of their own and when their object representations are the same as their value representations. This frequently is not true for the _Bool
type or floating-point types and need not be true for pointers. In such cases, the compiler does not insert padding, and use of functions such as memcmp()
is acceptable.
This compliant example uses the #pragma pack
compiler extension from Microsoft Visual Studio to ensure the structure members are packed as tightly as possible:
#include <string.h> #pragma pack(push, 1) struct s { char c; int i; char buffer[13]; }; #pragma pack(pop) void compare(const struct s *left, const struct s *right) { if ((left && right) && (0 == memcmp(left, right, sizeof(struct s)))) { /* ... */ } }
Risk Assessment
Comparing padding bytes, when present, can lead to unexpected program behavior.
Rule | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
EXP42-C | Medium | Probable | Medium | P8 | L2 |
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Astrée | 24.04 | memcpy-with-padding | Partially checked |
Axivion Bauhaus Suite | 7.2.0 | CertC-EXP42 | |
CodeSonar | 8.1p0 | BADFUNC.MEMCMP | Use of memcmp |
Cppcheck Premium | 24.9.0 | premium-cert-exp42-c | Fully implemented |
Helix QAC | 2024.3 | DF4726, DF4727, DF4728, DF4729 | |
Klocwork | 2024.3 | MISRA.STDLIB.MEMCMP.PTR_ARG_TYPES | |
LDRA tool suite | 9.7.1 | 618 S | Partially implemented |
Cppcheck | 2.15 | cert.py | Detected by the addon cert.py Does not warn about global/static padding data as this is probably initialized to 0 |
Parasoft C/C++test | 2023.1 | CERT_C-EXP42-a | Don't memcpy or memcmp non-PODs |
PC-lint Plus | 1.4 | 958, 959 | Assistance provided: reports structures which require padding between members or after the last member |
R2024a | Checks for memory comparison of padding data (rule fully covered) | ||
PVS-Studio | 7.33 | V1103 | |
RuleChecker | 24.04 | memcpy-with-padding | Partially checked |
TrustInSoft Analyzer | 1.38 | comparable_char_blocks | Exhaustively verified (see the compliant and the non-compliant example). |
Related Vulnerabilities
Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.
Related Guidelines
Key here (explains table format and definitions)
Taxonomy | Taxonomy item | Relationship |
---|---|---|
ISO/IEC TS 17961 | Comparison of padding data [padcomp] | Prior to 2018-01-12: CERT: Unspecified Relationship |
CERT C | EXP62-CPP. Do not access the bits of an object representation that are not part of the object's value representation | Prior to 2018-01-12: CERT: Unspecified Relationship |
Bibliography
[ISO/IEC 9899:2024] | 6.7.3.2, "Structure and Union Specifiers" 6.7.11, "Initialization" |
[Summit 1995] | Question 2.8 Question 2.12 |
8 Comments
David Svoboda
Question: Would we allow bitwise serlization of a struct, given that the padding data might contain sensitive info (eg: password from its previous use as a char string)?
Aaron Ballman
I think that's what DCL39-C. Avoid information leak in structure padding covers, unless I misunderstand.
Daniel Marjamäki
To me it seems that the "compliant" solution is dangerous and uncompliant.
It assumes there is no padding inside the struct, for instance between c and i.
Then it is dangerous, because if there is padding then that code will not compare the members completely.
Aaron Ballman
The compliant solution is comparing the struct members individually. The exception compliant solution is doing a
memcmp()
only because the structure is packed with an implementation-defined#pragma
. Can you expound on what you find dangerous?Daniel Marjamäki
sorry I misread the code. it is safe.
Daniel Marjamäki
as far as I see... if you don't want to compare padding data at all then memcmp should not be used. the struct members should be compared individually then.
Alex Bock
The Compliant Solution checks
left
andright
forNULL
while the Noncompliant Code Example and EXP42-C-EX1 do not. I don't think this difference is intended to illustrate anything about this rule so I would suggest making them all consistent for clarity. PassingNULL
tomemcmp
is undefined behavior.David Svoboda
Agreed, I changed the code as you suggest.