Opening and closing braces for if
, for
, and while
statements should always be used even if the statement's body contains only a single statement.
If an if
, while
, or for
statement is used in a macro, the macro definition should not conclude with a semicolon. (See PRE11-C. Do not conclude macro definitions with a semicolon.)
Braces improve the uniformity and readability of code. More important, when inserting an additional statement into a body containing only a single statement, it is easy to forget to add braces because the indentation gives strong (but misleading) guidance to the structure.
Braces also help ensure that macros with multiple statements are properly expanded. Such a macro should be wrapped in a do-while
loop. (See PRE10-C. Wrap multistatement macros in a do-while loop.) However, when the do-while
loop is not present, braces can still ensure that the macro expands as intended.
Noncompliant Code Example
This noncompliant code example uses an if
statement without braces to authenticate a user:
int login; if (invalid_login()) login = 0; else login = 1;
A developer might add a debugging statement to determine when the login is valid but forget to add opening and closing braces:
int login; if (invalid_login()) login = 0; else printf("Login is valid\n"); /* Debugging line added here */ login = 1; /* This line always gets executed /* regardless of a valid login! */
Because of the indentation of the code, it is difficult to tell that the code will not function as intended by the programmer, potentially leading to a security breach.
Compliant Solution
In the compliant solution, opening and closing braces are used even when the body is a single statement:
int login; if (invalid_login()) { login = 0; } else { login = 1; }
Noncompliant Code Example
This noncompliant code example has an if
statement nested in another if
statement without braces around the if
and else
bodies:
int privileges; if (invalid_login()) if (allow_guests()) privileges = GUEST; else privileges = ADMINISTRATOR;
The indentation could lead the programmer to believe that a user is given administrator privileges only when the user's login is valid. However, the else
statement actually attaches to the inner if
statement:
int privileges; if (invalid_login()) if (allow_guests()) privileges = GUEST; else privileges = ADMINISTRATOR;
This is a security loophole: users with invalid logins can still obtain administrator privileges.
Compliant Solution
In the compliant solution, adding braces removes the ambiguity and ensures that privileges are correctly assigned:
int privileges; if (invalid_login()) { if (allow_guests()) { privileges = GUEST; } } else { privileges = ADMINISTRATOR; }
Noncompliant Code Example (empty block)
This noncompliant code example has a while
statement with no block:
while (invalid_login());
Note that if invalid_login()
has no side effects (such as warning the user if their login failed), this code also violates MSC12-C. Detect and remove code that has no effect or is never executed.
Compliant Solution (empty block)
This compliant solution features an explicit empty block, which clarifies the developer's intent:
while (invalid_login()) {}
Risk Assessment
Recommendation | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
EXP19-C | Medium | Probable | Medium | P8 | L2 |
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description |
Astrée | 24.04 | compound-ifelse compound-loop | Fully checked |
Axivion Bauhaus Suite | 7.2.0 | CertC-EXP19 | Fully implemented |
Helix QAC | 2024.3 | C2212 | |
Klocwork | 2024.3 | MISRA.IF.NO_COMPOUND MISRA.STMT.NO_COMPOUND | |
LDRA tool suite | 9.7.1 | 11 S, 12 S, 428 S | Fully Implemented |
Parasoft C/C++test | 2023.1 | CERT_C-EXP19-a | The statement forming the body of a 'switch', 'while', 'do...while' or 'for' statement shall be a compound statement |
PC-lint Plus | 1.4 | 9012 | Fully supported |
Polyspace Bug Finder | R2024a | CERT C: Rec. EXP19-C | Checks for iteration or selection statement body not enclosed in braces (rec. fully covered) |
PVS-Studio | 7.33 | V563, V628, V640, V705 | |
RuleChecker | 24.04 | compound-ifelse compound-loop | Fully checked |
SonarQube C/C++ Plugin | 3.11 | S121 |
Related Vulnerabilities
CVE-2014-1266 was due, in large part, to failing to follow this recommendation. There is a spurious "goto fail" statement on line 631 of sslKeyExchange.c. This "goto" gets executed unconditionally, even though it is indented as if it were part of the preceding "if" statement. As a result, the call to sslRawVerify (which performs the actual signature verification) is rendered dead code. [ImperialViolet 2014]. If the body of the "if" statement had been enclosed in braces, then this defect likely would not have happened.
Related Guidelines
MISRA C:2012 | Rule 15.6 (required) |
18 Comments
David Svoboda
Unknown User (josephlu)
In that case adding a debugging statement would throw an error when compiling, because of a dangling
else
statement not paired with a correspondingif
statement:if
statement.Martin Sebor
The definition of the
SWAP()
macro in PRE10-C is suboptimal since it tacitly assumes that thetmp
variable is declared and of the same type as the arguments but for the purposes of this exercise it could be defined as a single expression (note that this definition violates PRE12-C. Do not define unsafe macros):In my opinion, using a
swap
function would be better (although not entirely without problems either):Another possible solution is to rely on a language extension such as gcc's
typeof
operator and Statements in Expressions (although this one skirts MSC14-C. Do not introduce unnecessary platform dependencies in addition to violating PRE33-C):Martin Sebor
A better term than a single body line is a single statement: there could be more than one statement on a line:
This guideline is especially relevant when PRE11-C. Do not conclude macro definitions with a semicolon isn't being followed. It would be nice to tie the two together on both ends (and do the same for PRE10-C. Wrap multi-statement macros in a do-while loop that you already mentioned here).
Unknown User (josephlu)
By tying the two together on both ends, do you mean that I should edit PRE11-C and PRE10-C too?
Martin Sebor
That's what I meant, yes. Have each of them reference this guideline, and have this one reference the other two, for completeness.
David Svoboda
In addition to my earlier comments, can you provide a hyperlink to the GNU coding standards?
Unknown User (josephlu)
Can I also provide hyperlinks to non-authoritative, personal web pages that discuss using braces in
if
statements?Also, does my recommendation fulfil your earlier comments?
David Svoboda
Yes, but only if you can't find any 'authoritative' pages. Books discussing C would prob be best, followed by official standards (eg MISRA) followed by well-known webpages (eg famous bloggers or stackoverflow.com).
which grants no privileges to the administrator. (The binding of an else clause to the innermost if statement is an arbitrary decision made by the standards committee long ago...back in the ANSI days I think.)
Philippe Mazet
Where do you get the information in "Automated detection" table from? Is it from the tool vendors? Or are you building this list on your own?
I ask this because I just found that this precise rule can be scanned using Coverity (tested with v8.5.0). You simply need to run a MISRA C 2012 scan using rule 15.6 checker. Could this information be added in the "Automated detection" table?
David Svoboda
Before we can publish any commercial SA tool capabilities, we need permission from the vendors. Most of the AD information you cite is added by the vendors themselves. Which constitutes permission, in my book
Aaron Ballman
In the newly added exception, the keywords should be in code font. Also, was
do
left off that list purposefully?FWIW, I'm not a fan of the new exception though I understand why it was added. I think empty compound statements should be encouraged because it calls out the oddity of the code.
G. Ann Campbell
At a minimum, I think the new exception should be expanded to make explicit that an "empty body" means a trailing
;
(altho 9 times out of 10 that trailing;
is probably actually a bug).David Svoboda
I excluded do statements b/c the rec did. Since they are typically do...while statements, I assumed that they are a subset of while statements.
I'm now leaning against the exception...that is, empty statements should require an explicit {} block for clarity. I'll make this change tomorrow if I don't hear otherwise.
Aaron Ballman
I support removing the exception entirely.
Jérôme GUY
I support this last proposition : execute test condition for doing nothing seems strange. It is the meaning of my post after. ("About the exception i would specify that test condition must have effect (MSC12-C).")
David Svoboda
I've replaced the exception with a NCCE/CS pair, which mandates explicit empty blocks.
Jérôme GUY
About the exception i would specify that test condition must have effect (MSC12-C).