...
Another approach is to insert a non-bit-field member between any two bit-fields to ensure that each bit-field is the only one accessed within its storage unit. This technique effectively guarantees that no two bit-fields are accessed simultaneously.
Noncompliant Code Example (Bit-field)
Adjacent bit-fields may be stored in a single memory location. Consequently, modifying adjacent bit-fields in different threads is undefined behavior, as shown in this noncompliant code example:
...
Code Block |
---|
Thread 1: register 0 = flags Thread 1: register 0 &= ~mask(flag1) Thread 2: register 0 = flags Thread 2: register 0 &= ~mask(flag2) Thread 1: register 0 |= 1 << shift(flag1) Thread 1: flags = register 0 Thread 2: register 0 |= 2 << shift(flag2) Thread 2: flags = register 0 |
Compliant Solution (Bit-field, C11, Mutex)
This compliant solution protects all accesses of the flags with a mutex, thereby preventing any data races:
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
#include <threads.h> struct multi_threaded_flags { unsigned int flag1 : 2; unsigned int flag2 : 2; }; struct mtf_mutex { struct multi_threaded_flags s; mtx_t mutex; }; struct mtf_mutex flags; int thread1(void *arg) { if (thrd_success != mtx_lock(&flags.mutex)) { /* Handle error */ } flags.s.flag1 = 1; if (thrd_success != mtx_unlock(&flags.mutex)) { /* Handle error */ } return 0; } int thread2(void *arg) { if (thrd_success != mtx_lock(&flags.mutex)) { /* Handle error */ } flags.s.flag2 = 2; if (thrd_success != mtx_unlock(&flags.mutex)) { /* Handle error */ } return 0; } |
Compliant Solution (C11)
In this compliant solution, two threads simultaneously modify two distinct non-bit-field members of a structure. Because the members occupy different bytes in memory, no concurrency protection is required.
...
It is almost certain that flag1
and flag2
are stored in the same word. Using a compiler that conforms to C99 or earlier, if both assignments occur on a thread-scheduling interleaving that ends with both stores occurring after one another, it is possible that only one of the flags will be set as intended, and the other flag will contain its previous value, because both members are represented by the same word, which is the smallest unit the processor can work on. Before the changes made to the C Standard for C11, there were no guarantees that these flags could be modified concurrently.
Risk Assessment
Although the race window is narrow, an assignment or an expression can evaluate improperly because of misinterpreted data resulting in a corrupted running state or unintended information disclosure.
Rule | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CON32-C | Medium | Probable | Medium | P8 | L2 |
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Coverity | 6.5 | RACE_CONDITION | Fully implemented |
Related Vulnerabilities
Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.
Bibliography
[ISO/IEC 9899:2011] | 3.14, "Memory Location" |
...