INT34-C. Do not shift a negative number of bits or more bits than exist in the operand

Bitwise shifts include left-shift operations of the form shift-expression << additive-expression and right-shift operations of the form shift-expression >> additive-expression. The integer promotions are performed on the operands, each of which has an integer type. The type of the result is that of the promoted left operand. If the value of the right operand is negative or is greater than or equal to the width of the promoted left operand, the behavior is undefined.

In almost every case, an attempt to shift by a negative number of bits or by more bits than exist in the operand indicates a bug (logic error). This is different than overflow, where there is simply a representational deficiency (see INT32-C. Ensure that operations on signed integers do not result in overflow).

Noncompliant Code Example (Left Shift, Signed Type)

The result of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit positions; vacated bits are filled with zeros. If E1 has a signed type and nonnegative value and E1 * 2 E2 is representable in the result type, then that is the resulting value; otherwise, the behavior is undefined.

The following code can result in undefined behavior because there is no check to ensure that left and right operands have non-negative values and that the right operand is less than or equal to the width of the promoted left operand.

int si1;
int si2;
int sresult;

sresult = si1 << si2;

Compliant Solution (Left Shift, Signed Type)

This compliant solution eliminates the possibility of undefined behavior resulting from a left shift operation on integers, it also uses unsigned integers in accordance with INT13-C. Use bitwise operators only on unsigned operands. Smaller sized integers are promoted according to the integer promotion rules (see INT02-C. Understand integer conversion rules).

unsigned int ui1;
unsigned int ui2;
unsigned int sresult;

if ((ui2 >= sizeof(int)*CHAR_BIT) 
  || (ui1 > (INT_MAX >> ui2)) ) 
{
  /* handle error condition */
}
else {
  sresult = ui1 << ui2;
}

In C99, the CHAR_BIT macro defines the number of bits for the smallest object that is not a bit-field (byte). Consequently, a byte contains CHAR_BIT bits.

Noncompliant Code Example (Left Shift, Unsigned Type)

The result of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit positions; vacated bits are filled with zeros. According to C99, if E1 has an unsigned type, the value of the result is E1 * 2 E2, reduced modulo one more than the maximum value representable in the result type. Although C99 specifies modulo behavior for unsigned integers, unsigned integer overflow frequently results in unexpected values and resultant security vulnerabilities (see INT32-C. Ensure that operations on signed integers do not result in overflow). Consequently, unsigned overflow is generally noncompliant and E1 * 2 E2 must be representable in the result type. Modulo behavior is allowed if the conditions in the exception section are met.

The following code can result in undefined behavior because there is no check to ensure that the right operand is less than or equal to the width of the promoted left operand.

unsigned int ui1;
unsigned int ui2;
unsigned int uresult;

uresult = ui1 << ui2;

Compliant Solution (Left Shift, Unsigned Type)

This compliant solution eliminates the possibility of undefined behavior resulting from a left-shift operation on unsigned integers. Example solutions are provided for the fully compliant case (unsigned overflow is prohibited) and the exceptional case (modulo behavior is allowed).

unsigned int ui1
unsigned int ui2
unsigned int uresult;

/* modulo behavior is allowed on mod1 and mod2 by exception */
unsigned int mod1
unsigned int mod2;  

/* ... */

if ( (ui2 >= sizeof(unsigned int)*CHAR_BIT) 
  || (ui1 > (UINT_MAX  >> ui2))) ) 
{
  /* handle error condition */
}
else {
  uresult = ui1 << ui2;
}

if (mod2 >= sizeof(unsigned int)*CHAR_BIT) {
  /* handle error condition */
}
else {
  /* modulo behavior is allowed by exception */
  uresult = mod1 << mod2; 
}

Noncompliant Code Example (Right Shift)

The result of E1 >> E2 is E1 right-shifted E2 bit positions. If E1 has an unsigned type or if E1 has a signed type and a nonnegative value, the value of the result is the integral part of the quotient of E1 / 2 E2. If E1 has a signed type and a negative value, the resulting value is implementation-defined and may be either an arithmetic (signed) shift, as depicted here,

or a logical (unsigned) shift.

This noncompliant code example fails to test whether the right operand is negative or is greater than or equal to the width of the promoted left operand, allowing undefined behavior.

int si1 = /* initialized using untrusted data */;
int si2 = /* initialized using untrusted data */;
int sresult;

unsigned int ui1 = /* initialized using untrusted data */;
unsigned int ui2 = /* initialized using untrusted data */;
unsigned int uresult;

sresult = si1 >> si2;
uresult = ui1 >> ui2;

Making assumptions about whether a right shift is implemented as an arithmetic (signed) shift or a logical (unsigned) shift can also lead to vulnerabilities (see INT13-C. Use bitwise operators only on unsigned operands).

Compliant Solution (Right Shift)

This compliant solution tests the suspect shift operations to guarantee there is no possibility of undefined behavior.

unsigned int ui1 = /* initialized using untrusted data */;
unsigned int ui2 = /* initialized using untrusted data */;
unsigned int uresult;

if (ui2 >= sizeof(unsigned int) * CHAR_BIT) {
  /* handle error condition */
}
else {
  uresult = ui1 >> ui2;
}

Exceptions

INT36-EX1: Unsigned integers can be allowed to exhibit modulo behavior if and only if

1. the variable declaration is clearly commented as supporting modulo behavior
2. each operation on that integer is also clearly commented as supporting modulo behavior

If the integer exhibiting modulo behavior contributes to the value of an integer not marked as exhibiting modulo behavior, the resulting integer must obey this rule.

Risk Assessment

Improper range checking can lead to buffer overflows and the execution of arbitrary code by an attacker.

Automated Detection

Fortify SCA Version 5.0 with CERT C Rule Pack can detect violations of this rule.

Related Vulnerabilities

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

References

A test program for this rule is available.

[[Dowd 06]] Chapter 6, "C Language Issues"
[[ISO/IEC 9899:1999]] Section 6.5.7, "Bitwise shift operators"
[[ISO/IEC PDTR 24772]] "XYY Wrap-around Error"
[[Seacord 05a]] Chapter 5, "Integers"
[[Viega 05]] Section 5.2.7, "Integer overflow"
[[ISO/IEC 03]] Section 6.5.7, "Bitwise shift operators"

INT33-C. Ensure that division and modulo operations do not result in divide-by-zero errors      04. Integers (INT)       INT35-C. Evaluate integer expressions in a larger size before comparing or assigning to that size