Division and modulo operations are susceptible to divide-by-zero errors.
The C Standard identifies two conditions under which division and modulo operations result in undefined behavior (UB):
UB | Description |
The value of the second operand of the | |
n/a | If the quotient a/b is not representable, . . . the behavior of both a/b and a%b is undefined (6.5.5). |
Division
The result of the /
operator is the quotient from the division of the first arithmetic operand by the second arithmetic operand. Division operations are susceptible to divide-by-zero errors. Overflow can also occur during two's complement signed integer division when the dividend is equal to the minimum (negative) value for the signed integer type and the divisor is equal to −1. (See INT32-C. Ensure that operations on signed integers do not result in overflow.)
Noncompliant Code Example
This noncompliant code example can result in a divide-by-zero error during the division of the signed operands s_a
and s_b.
It can also result in a signed integer overflow error on twos-complement platforms. The x86-32 architecture, for example, requires that both conditions result in a fault, which can easily result in a denial-of-service attack.
void func(signed long s_a, signed long s_b) { signed long result = s_a / s_b; /* ... */ }
Compliant Solution
This compliant solution tests the suspect division operation to guarantee there is no possibility of divide-by-zero errors or signed overflow:
#include <limits.h> void func(signed long s_a, signed long s_b) { signed long result; if ((s_b == 0) || ((s_a == LONG_MIN) && (s_b == -1))) { /* Handle error */ } else { result = s_a / s_b; } /* ... */ }
Modulo
The modulo operator provides the remainder when two operands of integer type are divided.
Noncompliant Code Example
This noncompliant code example can result in a divide-by-zero error during the modulo operation on the signed operands s_a
and s_b
. Furthermore, many hardware platforms implement modulo as part of the division operator, which can overflow. Overflow can occur during a modulo operation when the dividend is equal to the minimum (negative) value for the signed integer type and the divisor is equal to −1. This occurs even though the result of such a modulo operation is mathematically 0.
void func(signed long s_a, signed long s_b) { signed long result = s_a % s_b; /* ... */ }
Implementation Details
On x86 platforms, the modulo operator for signed integers is implemented by the idiv
instruction code, along with the divide operator. Because LONG_MIN / -1
overflows, this code will throw a floating-point exception on LONG_MIN % -1
.
On Microsoft Visual Studio 2013, taking the modulo of LONG_MIN
by −1
results in abnormal termination on x86 and x64. On GCC/Linux, taking the modulo of LONG_MIN
by −1
produces a floating-point exception. However, on GCC 4.2.4 and newer, with optimization enabled, taking the modulo of LONG_MIN
by −1
yields the value 0
.
Compliant Solution (Overflow Prevention)
This compliant solution tests the modulo operand to guarantee there is no possibility of a divide-by-zero error or an (internal) overflow error:
#include <limits.h> void func(signed long s_a, signed long s_b) { signed long result; if ((s_b == 0 ) || ((s_a == LONG_MIN) && (s_b == -1))) { /* Handle error */ } else { result = s_a % s_b; } /* ... */ }
Compliant Solution (Absolute Value)
This compliant solution is based on the fact that both the division and modulo operators truncate toward 0, as specified in subclause 6.5.5, footnote 105, of the C Standard [ISO/IEC 9899:2011], which guarantees that
i % j
and
i % -j
are always equivalent.
However, the minimum signed value modulo −1
results in undefined behavior because the minimum signed value divided by -1
is not representable.
#include <limits.h> void func(signed long s_a, signed long s_b) { signed long result; if (s_b == 0 || (s_a == LONG_MIN && s_b == -1)) { /* Handle error */ } else { if ((s_b < 0) && (s_b != LONG_MIN)) { s_b = -s_b; } result = s_a % s_b; } /* ... */ }
Risk Assessment
A divide by zero can result in abnormal program termination and denial of service.
Rule | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
INT33-C | Low | Likely | Medium | P6 | L2 |
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Can detect some violations of this rule. In particular, it ensures that all operations involving division or modulo are preceded by a check ensuring that the second operand is nonzero | |||
Coverity | 6.5 | DIVIDE_BY_ZERO | Fully implemented |
Fortify SCA | 5.0 | Can detect violations of this rule with CERT C Rule Pack | |
9.7.1 | 43 D | Partially implemented | |
PRQA QA-C | Unable to render {include} The included page could not be found. | 2830 (C) | Fully implemented |
Related Vulnerabilities
Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.
Related Guidelines
Bibliography
[ISO/IEC 9899:2011] | Subclause 6.5.5, "Multiplicative operators" |
[Seacord 2013] | Chapter 5, "Integer Security" |
[Warren 2002] | Chapter 2, "Basics" |