[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 21:51:25 +0400 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Static analyzers results on musl
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
- 19+1 "dead code" warnings are helpful
- "Out-of-bound array access" in glob.c appears to be a false positive (?)
- 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
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
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)
vfprintf.c:664
vfwprint.c:354 va_end not called on error return path
regcomp.c:767
regcomp.c:807 sizeof mismatch; don't know why not flagged by clang
getifaddrs.c:92 the code trusts the kernel that the fifth token would not be
longer than IFNAMSIZ :)
There are a few warnings that return value of .*nl_langinfo.* is not checked
for NULL before use; presumably that is by design.
Hope that helps.
Alexander
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.
