MSC01-C. Strive for logical completeness

Software vulnerabilities can result when a programmer fails to consider all possible data states.

Noncompliant Code Example (If Chain)

This noncompliant code example fails to test for conditions where a is neither b nor c. This behavior may be correct in this case, but failure to account for all the values of a can result in logic errors if a unexpectedly assumes a different value.

if (a == b) {
  /* ... */
}
else if (a == c) {
  /* ... */
}

Compliant Solution (If Chain)

This compliant solution explicitly checks for the unexpected condition and handles it appropriately:

if (a == b) {
  /* ... */
}
else if (a == c) {
  /* ... */
}
else {
  /* Handle error condition */
}

Noncompliant Code Example (Switch)

The following noncompliant code example fails to consider all possible cases. Failure to account for all valid values of type Color will result in a logic error. Because valid values of an enumerated type include all those of its underlying integer type, unless enumeration constants have been provided for all those values, the default label is appropriate and necessary.

typedef enum { Red, Green, Blue } Color;
const char* f(Color c) {
  switch (c) {
    case Red: return "Red";
    case Green: return "Green";
    case Blue: return "Blue";
  }
}

void g() {
  Color unknown = (Color)123;
  puts(f(unknown));
}

Implementation Details

Microsoft Visual C++ .NET with /W4 does not warn when assigning an integer value to an enum type or when the switch statement does not contain all possible values of the enumeration.

Compliant Solution (Switch)

The following compliant solution takes care to provide the default label to handle all valid values of type Color:

typedef enum { Red, Green, Blue } Color;
const char* f(Color c) {
  switch (c) {
    case Red: return "Red";
    case Green: return "Green";
    case Blue: return "Blue";
    default: return "Unknown color";   /* Necessary */
  }
}

Note that adding a default case to a switch statement, even when all possible switch labels are specified, is an exception (MSC07-EX1) to MSC07-C. Detect and remove dead code.

An alternative compliant solution to the noncompliant code example is to provide a return statement after the switch statement. Note, however, that this solution may not be appropriate in all situations.

typedef enum { Red, Green, Blue } Color;
const char* f(Color c) {
  switch (c) {
    case Red: return "Red";
    case Green: return "Green";
    case Blue: return "Blue";
  }
  return "Unknown color";   /* Necessary */
}

Historical Discussion

This practice has been a subject of debate for some time, but a clear direction has emerged.

Originally, the consensus among those writing best practices was simply that each switch statement should have a default label. Eventually, emerging compilers and static analysis tools could verify that a switch on an enum type contained a case label for each enumeration value, but only if no default label existed. This led to a shift toward purposely leaving out the default label to allow static analysis. However, the resulting code was then vulnerable to enum variables being assigned int values outside the set of enum values.

These two practices have now been merged. A switch on an enum type should now contain a case label for each enum value but should also contain a default label for safety. This practice does not add difficulty to static analysis.

Existing implementations are in transition, with some not yet analyzing switch statements with default labels. Developers must take extra care to check their own switch statements until the new practice becomes universal.

Noncompliant Code Example (Zune 30)

This noncompliant code example shows incomplete logic when converting dates. The code appeared in the Zune 30 media player, causing many players to lock up on December 30, 2008, at midnight PST. This noncompliant code example comes from the ConvertDays function in the real-time clock (RTC) routines for the MC13783 PMIC RTC. This noncompliant code sample takes the number of days since January 1, 1980, and computes the correct year and number of days since January 1 of the correct year.

The flaw in the code occurs when days has the value 366 because the loop never terminates. This bug manifested itself on the 366th day of 2008, which was the first leap year in which this code was active.

#define ORIGINYEAR 1980
UINT32 days = /* Number of days since January 1, 1980 */
int year = ORIGINYEAR;
/* ... */

while (days > 365) {
  if (IsLeapYear(year)) {
    if (days > 366) {
      days -= 366;
      year += 1;
    }
  }
  else {
    days -= 365;
    year += 1;
  }
}

Compliant Solution (Zune 30)

The following proposed rewrite is provided by at http://winjade.net/2009/01/lesson-on-infinite-loops. The loop is guaranteed to exit, because days decreases for each iteration of the loop, unless the while condition fails and the loop terminates.

#define ORIGINYEAR 1980
UINT32 days = /* Input parameter */
int year = ORIGINYEAR;
/* ... */

int daysThisYear = (IsLeapYear(year) ? 366 : 365);
while (days > daysThisYear) {
  days -= daysThisYear;
  year += 1;
  daysThisYear = (IsLeapYear(year) ? 366 : 365);
}

This compliant solution is for illustrative purposes and is not necessarily the solution implemented by Microsoft.

Risk Assessment

Failing to account for all possibilities within a logic statement can lead to a corrupted running state, potentially resulting in unintentional information disclosure or abnormal termination.

Automated Detection

  if (x > 0) {
	  /* ... */
  } else if (x < 0) {
    /* ... */
  } else if (x == 0) {
    /* ... */
  }

Related Vulnerabilities

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

Related Guidelines

Bibliography