C has very weak typing. It lets you type-cast memory to different types, allowing you to apply operations of one type to data of a different type. However, the internal representation of most types are system-dependent. Applying operations on improper types will likely yield non-portable code and produce unexpected results.
Non-Compliant Code Example (Ints vs. Floats)
The following non-compliant code demonstrates the perils of operating on data of improper types. It tries to increment an int type cast as a float, and a float type cast as an int, and displays the results.
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
float f = 0.0;
int i = 0;
float *fp;
int *ip;
assert(sizeof(int) == sizeof(float));
ip = (int*) &f;
fp = (float*) &i;
printf("int is %d, float is %f\n", i, f);
(*ip)++;
(*fp)++;
printf("int is %d, float is %f\n", i, f);
return 0;
}
|
Rather than the int and float both having the value 1, on a 64-bit Linux machine, this program produces:
Code Block |
---|
int is 0, float is 0.000000
int is 1065353216, float is 0.000000
|
Compliant Solution (Ints vs. Floats)
In this compliant solution, the pointers are assigned to the variables of the proper data types.
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
float f = 0.0;
int i = 0;
float *fp;
int *ip;
ip = &i;
fp = &f;
printf("int is %d, float is %f\n", i, f);
(*ip)++;
(*fp)++;
printf("int is %d, float is %f\n", i, f);
return 0;
}
|
This program, on the same platform, produces:
Code Block |
---|
int is 0, float is 0.000000
int is 1, float is 1.000000
|
which is what one would expect.
Bit-Fields
The internal representation of bit-field structs have several properties internal representations of bit-field structures have several properties (such as internal padding) that are implementation-defined. For instance, they may contain internal padding. BitAdditionally, bit-field structures have several additional implementation-defined constraints:
- The alignment of bit-fields in the storage unit . For (for example, the bit-fields may be allocated from the high end or the low end of the storage unit.)
- Whether or not bit-fields can overlap a storage unit boundary.
Consequently, it is impossible to write portable safe code that makes assumptions regarding the layout of bit-field structure members.
...
Noncompliant Code Example (Bit-Field Alignment)
Bit-fields can be used to allow flags or other integer values with small ranges to be packed together to save storage space. Bit-fields can improve the storage efficiency of structures. Compilers typically allocate consecutive bit-field structure members into the same int
-sized storage, as long as they fit completely into that storage unit. However, the order of allocation within a storage unit is implementation-defined. Some implementations are "right-to-left": the first member occupies the low-order position of the storage unit. Others are "left-to-right": the first member occupies the high-order position of the storage unit. Calculations that depend on the order of bits within a storage unit may produce different results on different implementations.
Consider the following structure made up of four 8-bit bit-field members.:
Code Block |
---|
struct bf {
unsigned int m1 : 8;
unsigned int m2 : 8;
unsigned int m3 : 8;
unsigned int m4 : 8;
}; /* 32 bits total */
|
Right-to-left implementations will allocate struct bf
as one storage unit with this format:
Code Block |
---|
m4 m3 m2 m1
|
Conversely, left-to-right implementations will allocate struct bf
as one storage unit with this format:
Code Block |
---|
m1 m2 m3 m4
|
The following code behaves differently depending on whether the implementation is left-to-right or right-to-left.:
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
struct bf { unsigned int m1 : 8; unsigned int m2 : 8; unsigned int m3 : 8; unsigned int m4 : 8; }; /* 32 bits total */ void function() { struct bf data; unsigned char *ptr; data.m1 = 0; data.m2 = 0; data.m3 = 0; data.m4 = 0; ptr = (unsigned char *)&data; (*ptr)++; /* couldCan increment data.m1 or data.m4 */ } |
Compliant Solution (Bit-Field Alignment)
This compliant solution is explicit in which fields it modifies.:
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
struct bf {
unsigned int m1 : 8;
unsigned int m2 : 8;
unsigned int m3 : 8;
unsigned int m4 : 8;
}; /* 32 bits total */
void function() {
struct bf data;
data.m1 = 0;
data.m2 = 0;
data.m3 = 0;
data.m4 = 0;
data.m1++;
}
|
...
Noncompliant Code Example (Bit-Field Overlap)
In the following non-compliant code, assuming eight this noncompliant code example, assuming 8 bits to a byte, if bit-fields of six and four of 6 and 4 bits are declared, is each bit-field contained within a byte, or are the bit-fields split across multiple bytes?
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
struct bf { unsigned int m1 : 6; unsigned int m2 : 4; }; void function() { unsigned char *ptr; struct bf data; data.m1 = 0; data.m2 = 0; ptr = (unsigned char *)&data; ptr++; *ptr += 1; /* whatWhat does this increment? */ } |
If each bit-field lives within its own byte, then m2
(or m1
, depending on alignment) is incremented by 1. If the bit-fields are indeed packed across 8-bit bytes, then m2
might be incremented by 4.This code also violates ARR37-C. Do not add or subtract an integer to a pointer to a non-array object.
Compliant Solution (Bit-Field Overlap)
This compliant solution is also explicit in which fields it modifies.:
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
struct bf {
unsigned int m1 : 6;
unsigned int m2 : 4;
};
void function() {
struct bf data;
data.m1 = 0;
data.m2 = 0;
data.m2 += 1;
}
|
Risk Assessment
Making invalid assumptions about the type of type-cast data, especially bit-fields, can result in unexpected data values.
Recommendation | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|
INT11-A
low
unlikely
medium
P2
EXP11-C | Medium | Probable | Medium | P8 | L2 |
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Astrée |
| Supported: Astrée reports runtime errors resulting from invalid assumptions. | |||||||
Compass/ROSE | Can detect violations of this recommendation. Specifically, it reports violations if
| ||||||||
Helix QAC |
| C0310, C0751 | |||||||
LDRA tool suite |
| 554 S | Fully implemented |
Related Vulnerabilities
Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule recommendation on the CERT website.
References
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[[ISO/IEC 9899:1999|AA. C References#ISO/IEC 9899-1999]\] Section 6.7.2, "Type specifiers"
\[[ISO/IEC PDTR 24772|AA. C References#ISO/IEC PDTR 24772]\] "STR Bit Representations"
\[[MISRA 04|AA. C References#MISRA 04]\] Rule 3.5
\[[Plum 85|AA. C References#Plum 85]\] Rule 6-5 |
Related Guidelines
SEI CERT C++ Coding Standard | VOID EXP11-CPP. Do not apply operators expecting one type to data of an incompatible type |
ISO/IEC TR 24772:2013 | Bit Representations [STR] |
MISRA C:2012 | Directive 1.1 (required) |
Bibliography
[Plum 1985] | Rule 6-5: In portable code, do not depend upon the allocation order of bit-fields within a word |
...
EXP10-A. Do not depend on the order of evaluation of subexpressions or the order in which side effects take place 03. Expressions (EXP) EXP30-C. Do not depend on order of evaluation between sequence points