1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
|
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<appendix>
<info>
<title>Cppcheck Design</title>
<author>
<personname><firstname>Daniel</firstname><surname>Marjamäki</surname></personname>
<affiliation>
<orgname>Cppcheck</orgname>
</affiliation>
</author>
<pubdate>2010</pubdate>
</info>
<section>
<title>Introduction</title>
<para>The goal with this article is to give users an idea of how Cppcheck
works.</para>
<para>Cppcheck is a static analysis tool that tries to completely avoid
false warnings. A false warning is when the tool reports that there is an
error even though there is no error.</para>
<para>Cppcheck is a relatively simple tool. I hope that this article will
highlight that it is possible to avoid false warnings even with simple
analysis.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>Limitations of static analysis</title>
<para>There are many bugs in programs that are really hard to detect for
tools. Here is an example:</para>
<programlisting> // calculate the number of days
int days = hours / 23;</programlisting>
<para>A human programmer knows that there are 24 hours in a day and
therefore he could see that "23" is wrong. A tool will probably not know
that there are 24 hours in a day.</para>
<para>A tool that tries to detect all bugs could write a warning message
for every calculation in the program. Then it will correctly report that
"hours / 23" is wrong but incorrectly warn about "hours / 24".</para>
<para>Cppcheck will only write a warning message if it can determine that
the calculation is wrong. In this case, no error will be written.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>Control flow analysis</title>
<para>When you review code you will probably use "control flow analysis"
in your head to determine if there are bugs or not.</para>
<para>Control flow analysis is when you try to determine what the possible
execution paths are.</para>
<para>The control flow analysis in Cppcheck is quite simple.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>Buffer overflows</title>
<para>This is a simple description of how buffer overflows are detected by
Cppcheck.</para>
<para>If an array is accessed out of bounds somewhere in its scope then an
error message will be written. An example code:</para>
<programlisting>void f()
{
char a[10];
if (x + y == 2) {
a[20] = 0;
}
}</programlisting>
<para>Cppcheck will report this message:</para>
<programlisting>Array 'a[10]' index 20 out of bounds</programlisting>
<para>No control flow analysis is used. Cppcheck will not try to determine
how execution can reach the "a[20] = 0;" statement. It is assumed that all
statements are reachable. Cppcheck will detect the error even if it is
really impossible that "x + y == 2" is true. I still claim that this is a
correct warning because the statement is there and it has the
error.</para>
<para>Cppcheck will also investigate function calls. But then control flow
analysis can be needed to avoid false warnings. Here is an example that
logically is the same as the previous example:</para>
<programlisting>void f1(char *s)
{
s[20] = 0;
}
void f2()
{
char a[10];
if (x + y == 2) {
f1(a);
}
}</programlisting>
<para>Cppcheck will report this message:</para>
<programlisting>Array 'a[10]' index 20 out of bounds</programlisting>
<para>If the execution reaches the function call then there will be an
error.</para>
<para>But if the condition is moved into "f1" then it will be necessary to
prove that "x+y==2" can be true when the function is called from "f2". No
error message is reported for this code:</para>
<programlisting>void f1(char *s)
{
if (x + y == 2) {
s[20] = 0;
}
}
void f2()
{
char a[10];
f1(a);
}</programlisting>
</section>
<section>
<title>Memory leaks</title>
<para>The check uses simple control-flow analysis. The control flow
analysis assumes that all conditions can always be either true or false.
It is assumed that all statements are reachable. Here is an
example:</para>
<programlisting>void f()
{
char *a = malloc(10);
if (x + y == 2) {
return;
}
free(a);
}</programlisting>
<para>Cppcheck will determine that there is a leak at the "return;"
statement:</para>
<programlisting>Memory leak: a</programlisting>
<para>Cppcheck doesn't try to determine how the execution reaches the
"return;" statement. It will only see that if the execution reaches the
"return;" then there will be a memory leak.</para>
<para>Lack of advanced control-flow analysis means that many bugs are not
detected:</para>
<programlisting>void f(int x)
{
char *a = 0;
if (x == 10)
a = malloc(10);
if (x == 20)
free(a);
}</programlisting>
<para>Cppcheck doesn't detect any error. The "all conditions can be either
true/false" means that cppcheck doesn't know that "if (x==20)" is always
false when "if (x==10)" is true. So Cppcheck can't establish that there is
a leak. Many other static analysis tools will probably detect that there
will be a leak if x is 10.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>Final thoughts</title>
<para>You cannot trust that Cppcheck will detect all bugs.</para>
<para>Cppcheck will just find some bugs. It is likely that you won't find
these bugs unless you use Cppcheck.</para>
</section>
</appendix>
|
