Dynamic memory management is a common source of programming flaws that can lead to security vulnerabilities. Decisions regarding how dynamic memory is allocated, used, and deallocated are the burden of the programmer. Poor memory management can lead to security issues, such as heap-buffer overflows, dangling pointers, and double-free issues \ [[Seacord 2005a|AA. Bibliography#Seacord 05]\Seacord 2013]. From the programmer's perspective, memory management involves allocating memory, reading and writing to memory, and deallocating memory. Wiki Markup
Allocating and freeing memory in different modules and levels of abstraction may make it difficult to determine when and if a block of memory has been freed, leading to programming defects, such as memory leaks, double-free vulnerabilities, accessing freed memory, or writing to freed or unallocated memory.
To avoid these situations, memory should be allocated and freed at the same level of abstraction and, ideally, in the same code module. This includes the use of the following memory allocation and deallocation functions described in C99, Section in subclause 7.2023.3 \[of the C Standard [ISO/IEC 9899:1999|AA. Bibliography#ISO/IEC 9899-1999]\2011]: Wiki Markup
Code Block |
---|
void *malloc(size_t size); void *calloc(size_t nmemb, size_t size); void *realloc(void *ptr, size_t size); void *aligned_alloc(size_t alignment, size_t size); void free(void *ptr); |
...
Failing to follow this recommendation has led to real-world vulnerabilities. For example, freeing memory in different modules resulted in a vulnerability in MIT Kerberos 5 \ [[MIT 2004|AA. Bibliography#MIT 04]\]. The MIT Kerberos 5 code in this case contained error-handling logic, which freed memory allocated by the ASN.1 decoders if pointers to the allocated memory were non-null. However, if a detectable error occurred, the ASN.1 decoders freed the memory that they had allocated. When some library functions received errors from the ASN.1 decoders, they also attempted to free the same memory, resulting in a double-free vulnerability.
Noncompliant Code Example
...
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
enum { MIN_SIZE_ALLOWED = 32 }; int verify_size(char *list, size_t size) { if (size < MIN_SIZE_ALLOWED) { /* Handle Errorerror Conditioncondition */ free(list); return -1; } return 0; } void process_list(size_t number) { char *list = (char *)malloc(number); if (list == NULL) { /* Handle Allocationallocation Errorerror */ } if (verify_size(list, number) == -1) { free(list); return; } /* Continue Processingprocessing list */ free(list); } |
The call to free memory in the verify_size()
function takes place in a subroutine of the process_list()
function, at a different level of abstraction from the allocation, resulting in a violation of this recommendation. The memory deallocation also occurs in error-handling code, which is frequently not as well tested as "green paths" through the code.
...
To correct this problem, the error-handling code in verify_size()
is modified so that it no longer frees list
. This change ensures that list
is freed only once, at the same level of abstraction, in the process_list()
function.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
enum { MIN_SIZE_ALLOWED = 32 }; int verify_size(const char *list, size_t size) { if (size < MIN_SIZE_ALLOWED) { /* Handle Errorerror Conditioncondition */ return -1; } return 0; } void process_list(size_t number) { char *list = (char *)malloc(number); if (list == NULL) { /* Handle Allocationallocation Errorerror */ } if (verify_size(list, number) == -1) { free(list); return; } /* Continue Processingprocessing list */ free(list); } |
Risk Assessment
The mismanagement of memory can lead to freeing memory multiple times or writing to already freed memory. Both of these coding errors can result in an attacker executing arbitrary code with the permissions of the vulnerable process. Memory management errors can also lead to resource depletion and denial-of-service attacks.
Recommendation | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
MEM00-C |
High |
Probable |
Medium | P12 | L1 |
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description |
---|
CodeSonar |
|
|
|
Section |
---|
50 D |
Section |
---|
Partially Implemented |
Section |
---|
Fortify SCA |
Section |
---|
V. 5.0 |
Section |
---|
can detect violations of this rule with CERT C Rule Pack |
ALLOC.DF | Double free |
Compass/ROSE |
Could detect possible violations by reporting any function that has |
at the same level of abstraction |
if they are in different functions |
Coverity | 6.5 | RESOURCE_LEAK | Fully implemented | ||||||
Klocwork |
| FREE.INCONSISTENT UFM.FFM.MIGHT UFM.FFM.MUST UFM.DEREF.MIGHT UFM.DEREF.MUST UFM.RETURN.MIGHT UFM.RETURN.MUST UFM.USE.MIGHT UFM.USE.MUST MLK.MIGHT MLK.MUST MLK.RET.MIGHT MLK.RET.MUST FNH.MIGHT FNH.MUST FUM.GEN.MIGHT FUM.GEN.MUST RH.LEAK | |||||||
LDRA tool suite |
| 50 D | Partially implemented | ||||||
Parasoft C/C++test |
| CERT_C-MEM00-a | Do not allocate memory and expect that someone else will deallocate it later | ||||||
Parasoft Insure++ | Runtime analysis | ||||||||
PC-lint Plus |
| 449, 2434 | Partially supported | ||||||
Polyspace Bug Finder |
| Checks for:
Rec. partially covered. |
Section |
---|
Section |
---|
USE_AFTER_FREE |
Related Vulnerabilities
Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.
Related
...
Guidelines
...
...
VOID MEM11-CPP. Allocate and free memory in the same module, at the same level of abstraction | |
ISO/IEC |
...
TR 24772:2013 | Memory Leak [XYL] |
MITRE CWE |
...
...
Bibliography
[MIT 2004] | |
[Plakosh 2005] | |
[Seacord 2013] | Chapter 4, "Dynamic Memory Management" |
...
MITRE CWE: CWE-415, "Double Free"
Bibliography
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[[MIT 2004|AA. Bibliography#MIT 04]\]
\[[Plakosh 2005|AA. Bibliography#Plakosh 05]\]
\[[Seacord 2005a|AA. Bibliography#Seacord 05]\] Chapter 4, "Dynamic Memory Management" |