[Bug analyzer/105889] New: RFE: -fanalyzer should complain about uses of inherently unsafe functions

[Bug analyzer/105889] New: RFE: -fanalyzer should complain about uses of inherently unsafe functions

[dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105889

            Bug ID: 105889
           Summary: RFE: -fanalyzer should complain about uses of
                    inherently unsafe functions
           Product: gcc
           Version: 12.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: analyzer
          Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
            Blocks: 105887
  Target Milestone: ---

Looking at https://clang.llvm.org/docs/analyzer/checkers.html :

security.insecureAPI.gets:
  looks easy to implement, but perhaps low-value, given that glibc has
removed it from <stdio.h>.  Doesn't need to be in analyzer, just
"inherently unsafe function" as per CWE-242:
  https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/242.html

security.insecureAPI.mktemp:
  looks easy to implement, and useful; another CWE-242


Referenced Bugs:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105887
[Bug 105887] RFE: clang analyzer warnings that GCC's -fanalyzer could implement

[Bug analyzer/105889] RFE: -fanalyzer should complain about uses of inherently unsafe functions

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105889

Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Do these clang checkers do anything more that can't already be done with just
#pragma GCC poison?

[Bug analyzer/105889] RFE: -fanalyzer should complain about uses of inherently unsafe functions

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105889

--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Alternate idea: have fixincludes modify headers that still declare gets() and
mktemp() to annotate them with __attribute__((error)) or
__attribute__((warning)), if they don't already have at least one of them