To get a trial key
fill out the form below
Team License (a basic version)
Enterprise License (an extended version)
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Request our prices
New License
License Renewal
--Select currency--
USD
EUR
GBP
RUB
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Free PVS-Studio license for Microsoft MVP specialists
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

I am interested to try it on the platforms:
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Message submitted.

Your message has been sent. We will email you at


If you haven't received our response, please do the following:
check your Spam/Junk folder and click the "Not Spam" button for our message.
This way, you won't miss messages from our team in the future.

>
>
>
One day in the life of PVS-Studio devel…

One day in the life of PVS-Studio developer, or how I debugged diagnostic that surpassed three programmers

Jul 05 2021

Static analyzers' primary aim is to search for errors missed by developers. Recently, the PVS-Studio team again found an interesting example proving the power of static analysis.

0842_One_more_case_when_the_static_analyzer_is_right/image1.png

You have to be very attentive while working with static analysis tools. Often the code that triggered the analyzer seems to be correct. So, you are tempted to mark the warning as false positive. The other day, we fell into such a trap. Here's how it turned out.

Recently, we've enhanced the analyzer core. When viewing new warnings, my colleague found a false one among them. He noted the warning to show the team leader, who glanced through the code and created a task. I took the task. That's what brought together three programmers.

The analyzer warning: V645 The 'strncat' function call could lead to the 'a.consoleText' buffer overflow. The bounds should not contain the size of the buffer, but a number of characters it can hold.

The code fragment:

struct A
{
  char consoleText[512];
};

void foo(A a)
{
  char inputBuffer[1024];
  ....
  strncat(a.consoleText, inputBuffer, sizeof(a.consoleText) –
                                      strlen(a.consoleText) - 5);
  ....
}

Before we take a look at the example, let's recall what the strncat function does:

char *strncat(
  char *strDest,
  const char *strSource,
  size_t count 
);

where:

  • 'destination' — pointer to a string to append to;
  • 'source' — pointer to a string to copy from;
  • 'count' — maximum number of characters to copy.

At first glance, the code seems great. The code calculates the amount of free buffer space. And it seems that we have 4 extra bytes... We thought the code was written in the right way, so we noted it as an example of a false warning.

Let's see if this is really the case. In the expression:

sizeof(a.consoleText) – strlen(a.consoleText) – 5

the maximum value can be reached with the minimum value of the second operand:

strlen(a.consoleText) = 0

Then the result is 507, and no overflow happens. Why does PVS-Studio issue the warning? Let's delve into the analyzer's internal mechanics and try to figure it out.

Static analyzers use data-flow analysis to calculate such expressions. In most cases, if an expression consists of compile-time constants, data flow returns the exact value of the expression. In all other cases, as with the warning, data flow returns only a range of possible values of the expression.

In this case, the strlen(a.consoleText) operand value is unknown at compile time. Let's look at the range.

After a few minutes of debugging, we get the whole 2 ranges:

[0, 507] U [0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFC, 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF]

The second range seems redundant. However, that's not so. We forgot that the expression may receive a negative number. For example, such may happen if strlen(a.consoleText) = 508. In this case, an unsigned integer overflow happens. The expression results in the maximum value of the resulting type — size_t.

It turns out that the analyzer is right! In this expression, the consoleText field may receive a much larger number of characters than it can store. This leads to buffer overflow and to undefined behavior. So, we received an unexpected warning because there is no false positive here!

That's how we found new reasons to recall the key advantage of static analysis — the tool is much more attentive than a person. Thus, a thoughtful review of the analyzer's warnings saves developers time and effort while debugging. It also protects from errors and snap judgments.

Popular related articles
The Evil within the Comparison Functions

Date: May 19 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

Perhaps, readers remember my article titled "Last line effect". It describes a pattern I've once noticed: in most cases programmers make an error in the last line of similar text blocks. Now I want t…
The Ultimate Question of Programming, Refactoring, and Everything

Date: Apr 14 2016

Author: Andrey Karpov

Yes, you've guessed correctly - the answer is "42". In this article you will find 42 recommendations about coding in C++ that can help a programmer avoid a lot of errors, save time and effort. The au…
PVS-Studio for Java

Date: Jan 17 2019

Author: Andrey Karpov

In the seventh version of the PVS-Studio static analyzer, we added support of the Java language. It's time for a brief story of how we've started making support of the Java language, how far we've co…
Appreciate Static Code Analysis!

Date: Oct 16 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

I am really astonished by the capabilities of static code analysis even though I am one of the developers of PVS-Studio analyzer myself. The tool surprised me the other day as it turned out to be sma…
The way static analyzers fight against false positives, and why they do it

Date: Mar 20 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

In my previous article I wrote that I don't like the approach of evaluating the efficiency of static analyzers with the help of synthetic tests. In that article, I give the example of a code fragment…
Characteristics of PVS-Studio Analyzer by the Example of EFL Core Libraries, 10-15% of False Positives

Date: Jul 31 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

After I wrote quite a big article about the analysis of the Tizen OS code, I received a large number of questions concerning the percentage of false positives and the density of errors (how many erro…
The Last Line Effect

Date: May 31 2014

Author: Andrey Karpov

I have studied many errors caused by the use of the Copy-Paste method, and can assure you that programmers most often tend to make mistakes in the last fragment of a homogeneous code block. I have ne…
Technologies used in the PVS-Studio code analyzer for finding bugs and potential vulnerabilities

Date: Nov 21 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

A brief description of technologies used in the PVS-Studio tool, which let us effectively detect a large number of error patterns and potential vulnerabilities. The article describes the implementati…
How PVS-Studio Proved to Be More Attentive Than Three and a Half Programmers

Date: Oct 22 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

Just like other static analyzers, PVS-Studio often produces false positives. What you are about to read is a short story where I'll tell you how PVS-Studio proved, just one more time, to be more atte…
PVS-Studio ROI

Date: Jan 30 2019

Author: Andrey Karpov

Occasionally, we're asked a question, what monetary value the company will receive from using PVS-Studio. We decided to draw up a response in the form of an article and provide tables, which will sho…

Comments (0)

Next comments
This website uses cookies and other technology to provide you a more personalized experience. By continuing the view of our web-pages you accept the terms of using these files. If you don't want your personal data to be processed, please, leave this site.
Learn More →
Accept