[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131004202158.GM20515@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 16:21:58 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Static analyzers results on musl
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:51:25PM +0400, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> >From reading recent archives, it appeared to me there was some interest in
> applying source code analysis tools to musl. My co-workers helped me run a
> couple of tools on musl, so here are the results.
>
> Szabolcs kindly assisted with hosting Clang Analyzer results at
>
> http://port70.net/~nsz/musl/clang-2013-10-04/
>
> The analyzer was run on today's sources (commit 38a0a4d). The build with
> make -j4 was interrupted at some point during building PIC objects; I presume
> at that point all non-PIC code was built, and the analyzer saw all source
> code, except maybe some #ifdef SHARED sections.
>
> My take on those:
> - 2 sizeof mismatch warnings make sense
Indeed, I think these are bugs, but it's likely they don't matter
because the allocations are larger than needed rather than smaller.
> - 19+1 "dead code" warnings are helpful
Yes.
> - "Out-of-bound array access" in glob.c appears to be a false positive (?)
I'll need to look closer at this. It might be a real issue.
> - There are many "garbage"/"undefined" warnings where the variable in
> question is passed to a syscall by reference and expected to be initialized
> there, unless error is signalled; it's quite unfortunate to have many false
> positives like that
> - I have not attempted to investigate "dereference of null" warnings
Some of these look like they might be valid errors.
> I also have results from another static analysis tool developed internally
> were I work. Here's a few hand-picked additional warnings. I ran the tool
> without updating git first, so the tree was from September 9 (commit ff4be70).
> Sorry about that.
>
> setenv.c:21 malloc return value not checked
Definitely a bug. Fixing it.
> getspnam_r.c I wonder if there's a window between opening the file and
> pthread_cleanup_push where the handle would leak? (this is not what the tool
> flagged)
No, there are no calls to cancellation points in that interval.
> vfprintf.c:664
> vfwprint.c:354 va_end not called on error return path
There are several cases of this in other places too. It has no
practical consequence, since the only possible implementation of
va_end is a no-op, but it should be fixed to make the code formally
correct.
> regcomp.c:767
> regcomp.c:807 sizeof mismatch; don't know why not flagged by clang
Presumably because it's using a custom allocation function clang does
not know about.
> getifaddrs.c:92 the code trusts the kernel that the fifth token would not be
> longer than IFNAMSIZ :)
This is an interesting theoretical issue we should probably adopt a
policy on. Obviously you have to trust the kernel to _some_ extent,
but there may be instances where it makes sense to validate data from
the kernel.
> There are a few warnings that return value of .*nl_langinfo.* is not checked
> for NULL before use; presumably that is by design.
nl_langinfo is not permitted to return NULL, so this warning makes no
sense.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
