On Fri, 2022-09-02 at 16:08 +0200, Tim Lange wrote: > Hi, > > below is my patch for the strcpy and strncpy semantics inside the > analyzer, enabling the out-of-bounds checker to also complain about > overflows caused by those two functions. > > As the plan is to reason about the inequality of symbolic values in > the > future, I decided to use eval_condition to compare the number of > bytes and > the string size for strncpy [0]. > > - Tim > > [0] instead of only trying to handle cases where svalues are > constant; > which was how I did it in an earlier draft discussed off-list. > > > This patch adds modelling for the semantics of strcpy and strncpy in > the > simple case where the analyzer is able to reason about the inequality > of > the size argument and the string size. > > Regrtested on Linux x86_64.
Thanks for the patch. The strcpy part looks great, but strncpy has some tricky behavior that isn't fully modeled by the patch; see: https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/string/byte/strncpy For example: if the src string with null terminator is shorter than "count", then dest is padded with additional null characters up to "count". You could split out the strcpy part of the patch, as that seems to be ready to go as-is, and do the strncpy part as a followup if you like; some further notes below... [...snip...] > > +/* Handle the on_call_pre part of "strncpy" and > "__builtin_strncpy_chk". */ > > - /* For now, just mark region's contents as unknown. */ > - mark_region_as_unknown (dest_reg, cd.get_uncertainty ()); > +void > +region_model::impl_call_strncpy (const call_details &cd) > +{ > + const svalue *dest_sval = cd.get_arg_svalue (0); > + const region *dest_reg = deref_rvalue (dest_sval, cd.get_arg_tree > (0), > + cd.get_ctxt ()); > + const svalue *src_sval = cd.get_arg_svalue (1); > + const region *src_reg = deref_rvalue (src_sval, cd.get_arg_tree > (1), > + cd.get_ctxt ()); > + const svalue *src_contents_sval = get_store_value (src_reg, > + cd.get_ctxt ()); > + const svalue *num_bytes_sval = cd.get_arg_svalue (2); > + > + cd.maybe_set_lhs (dest_sval); > + > + const svalue *string_size_sval = get_string_size (src_reg); > + if (string_size_sval->get_kind () == SK_UNKNOWN) > + string_size_sval = get_string_size (src_contents_sval); > + > + /* strncpy copies until a zero terminator is reached or n bytes > were copied. > + Determine the lesser of both here. */ > + tristate ts = eval_condition (string_size_sval, LT_EXPR, > num_bytes_sval); > + const svalue *copied_bytes_sval; > + switch (ts.get_value ()) > + { > + case tristate::TS_TRUE: > + copied_bytes_sval = string_size_sval; This is the strlen(src) + 1 < count case, and thus we want to do a zero-fill of size: bin_op(num_bytes_sval, MINUS_EXPR, copied_bytes_sval) in the relevant subregion of dest_reg. Or perhaps this could be expressed by first doing a full zero-fill of the num_bytes_sval-sized region of dest_reg, and then copying the src contents. > + break; > + case tristate::TS_FALSE: > + copied_bytes_sval = num_bytes_sval; > + break; > + case tristate::TS_UNKNOWN: > + copied_bytes_sval > + = m_mgr->get_or_create_unknown_svalue (size_type_node); > + break; > + default: > + gcc_unreachable (); > + } > + > + const region *sized_dest_reg = m_mgr->get_sized_region (dest_reg, > NULL_TREE, > + > copied_bytes_sval); > + set_value (sized_dest_reg, src_contents_sval, cd.get_ctxt ()); > } > [...snip...] > > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-4.c > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000000..382f0fb5ef4 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-4.c > @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ > +/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-stringop-overflow -Wno-stringop- > truncation" } */ > +#include <stdlib.h> > +#include <string.h> > +#include <stdint.h> > + > +/* Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds tests for str(n)py-related overflows. > + > + The intra-procedural tests are all catched by Wstringop-overflow. Nit: "catched" -> "caught". [...snip...] > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/strncpy-1.c > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/strncpy-1.c > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000000..ea051eb761a > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/strncpy-1.c > @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ > +#include <string.h> > +#include "analyzer-decls.h" > + > +void test_1 (void) > +{ > + char str[] = "Hello"; > + char buf[6]; > + char *result = strncpy (buf, str, 6); > + __analyzer_describe (1, result); /* { dg-warning > "region_svalue.*?'buf'" } */ > + __analyzer_eval (result == buf); /* { dg-warning "TRUE" } */ > + __analyzer_eval (buf[0] == 'H'); /* { dg-warning "TRUE" } */ > + __analyzer_eval (buf[1] == 'e'); /* { dg-warning "TRUE" } */ > + __analyzer_eval (buf[2] == 'l'); /* { dg-warning "TRUE" } */ > + __analyzer_eval (buf[3] == 'l'); /* { dg-warning "TRUE" } */ > + __analyzer_eval (buf[4] == 'o'); /* { dg-warning "TRUE" } */ > + __analyzer_eval (buf[5] == 0); /* { dg-warning "TRUE" } */ > + __analyzer_eval (result[0] == 'H'); /* { dg-warning "TRUE" } */ > + __analyzer_eval (result[1] == 'e'); /* { dg-warning "TRUE" } */ > + __analyzer_eval (result[2] == 'l'); /* { dg-warning "TRUE" } */ > + __analyzer_eval (result[3] == 'l'); /* { dg-warning "TRUE" } */ > + __analyzer_eval (result[4] == 'o'); /* { dg-warning "TRUE" } */ > + __analyzer_eval (result[5] == 0); /* { dg-warning "TRUE" } */ > +} This covers the case where "count" (the 3rd arg of strncpy) is strlen (src) + 1, but it would be good to have test coverage for the following additional cases: * count == strlen(src) (and thus the dst buf doesn't have a nul terminator) * count < strlen(src) (and thus we have only a prefix of the src string writtn) * count == 0 (with my QA hat on; a no-op, I think, but let's make sure we don't crash) * count == strlen(src) + 2 (so that there's an extra 0 byte written to the end of the dst buffer) * count is much bigger than strlen(src) for all of the valid cases (where the dst buffer is big enough). We'll eventually also want coverage for out-of-bounds versions of these, where the dst buffer isn't big enough. Do we properly handle the case where the destination pointer is at some nonzero constant offset into a buffer? (for both strcpy and strncpy) Hope this is constructive Dave
