Page History

According to the C Standard, subclause 6.7.6.3, paragraph 14 [ISO/IEC 9899:2011],

An identifier list declares only the identifiers of the parameters of the function. An empty list in a function declarator that is part of a definition of that function specifies that the function has no parameters. The empty list in a function declarator that is not part of a definition of that function specifies that no information about the number or types of the parameters is supplied.

Subclause 6.11.6 states that

The use of function declarators with empty parentheses (not prototype-format parameter type declarators) is an obsolescent feature.

Consequently, functions that accept no arguments Functions that takes no parameter should explicitly declare a void parameter as in their parameter list. This holds true during in both the declaration and definition section sections (and they which should match), especially given that many compilers today still allow implicitly declared functions, though C99 has eliminated it.unmigrated-wiki-markup

Defining a function with or without void is not the same, because in latter case the compiler will not check whether the function is called with parameters at all \[[C void usage|http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#void]\]. Thus, function calling with arbitrary parameters will be accepted without a warning at compile a void argument list differs from declaring it with no arguments because, in the latter case, the compiler will not check whether the function is called with parameters at all [TIGCC, void usage]. Consequently, function calling with arbitrary parameters will be accepted without a warning at compile time.

Failure to declare a void parameter will results result in

• An ambiguous functional interface between the caller and callee

...

• .
• Sensitive information outflow.

Wiki MarkupThere is a similar rule that deals with parameter type in a more general sense: \[[A similar recommendation deals with parameter type in a more general sense: DCL07-C. Include the appropriate type information in function declarators|DCL07-C. Include the appropriate type information in function declarators]\].

In C++ the usage of foo() and foo(void) has exactly the same meaning and effect, so this rule doesn't apply to C++.
But it is still recommended to explicitly declare foo(void) instead of foo() to distinguish from foo(...), which will then takes arbitrary parameters.

Noncompliant Code Example (ambiguous interface)

Noncompliant Code Example (Ambiguous Interface)

In this noncompliant code example, the caller calls foo() with an argument of 3. The caller expects foo() to accept a single int argument and to output the argument as part of a longer message. Because In this particular example, caller gives a call to foo with parameter specified as 3. Because function foo() is declared without the void parameter, the compiler will not perform any caller check. Due to the accidental internal implementation, the function foo() outputs i value: 3 which matches with caller's temptation. In an inherited code base where foo and caller are developed at different time, this leads to caller's belief that foo actually accept one integer as parameter and foo will output the corresponding message when parameter is changed.It is therefore possible that the caller may not detect the error. In this example, for instance, foo() might output the value 3 as expected.

Because no function parameter In fact, no parameter specified for a function has the same meaning as an arbitrary paramemtersparameter, which means the caller can feed provide an arbitrary number of parameters arguments to the function. Arbitrary parameter list is useful for system logging purpose, e.g., but not the callee's intention in other situation.

/* In foo.h */
void foo();

/* In foo.c */
void foo() {
    int i = 3;
    printf("i value: %d\n", i);
}

...

/* In caller.c */
    #include "foo.h"

foo(3);

Compliant Solution (

...

Ambiguous Interface)

In this examplecompliant solution, void is specified explicitly specified as a parameter . in the declaration of foo's prototype:

/* In foo.h */
void foo(void);

/* compileIn using gcc4.3.3foo.c */
void foo (void) {
    int i = 3;
    printf("i value: %d\n", i);
}

/* In caller.c */
#include "foo.h"

foo(3);

Implementation Details (

...

Ambiguous Interface)

In gcc-4.3.3, when the above When the compliant solution is used and foo(3) is called, gcc will complain the GCC compiler issues the following diagnostic, which alerts the programmer about the misuse of the function interface.:

error: too many arguments to function ‘foo’
"€˜foo"

Noncompliant Code Example (

...

Information Outflow)

Another possible vulnerability is the leak of privileged information. In the above this noncompliant code example, suppose a user with high privilege feed privileges feeds some secret input into to the caller that the caller , then caller will pass the info passes to foo. When doing static code analysis of foo interface, because no parameter is specified, it is easy to assume there's no way that foo can retrieve info from (). Because of the way foo() is defined, we might assume there is no way for foo() to retrieve information from the caller. However, because the value of i is really passed into a stack (before the return address of the caller), a malicious programmer can change the internal implmentation implementation and copy the value manually and contain it in into a less privileged file.

/* compileCompile using gcc4.3.3 */
void foo () {
  /* 
 /  * useUse asmassembly code to retrieve i
     * implicitly from caller
     * and transfer it to a less privilegeprivileged file.
   */
}

...

/* callerCaller */
    foo(i); /* i is fed from user input */

Compliant Solution (

...

Information Outflow)

void foo (void) {
    int i = 3;
    printf("i value: %d\n", i);
}

Again, the simple simplest solution is to explicitly specify void as the only parameter explicitly.

Risk Assessment

Automated Detection

Related Vulnerabilities

Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.

References

Related Guidelines

In C++, foo() and foo(void) have exactly the same meaning and effect, so this rule doesn't apply to C++. However, foo(void) should be declared explicitly instead of foo() to distinguish it from foo(...), which accepts an arbitrary number and type of arguments.

Bibliography

...

Image Added Image Added Image Added Wiki Markup\[[ISO/IEC 9899:1999|AA. C References#ISO/IEC 9899-1999]\] Forward and Section 6.9.1, "Function definitions" \[[C void usage|http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/keywords.html#void]\]