From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 64E0C385E010; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:59:02 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 64E0C385E010 From: "dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug analyzer/106000] New: RFE: -fanalyzer should complain about definite buffer overflows/underflows Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:59:02 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: analyzer X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter blocked target_milestone Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:59:02 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106000 Bug ID: 106000 Summary: RFE: -fanalyzer should complain about definite buffer overflows/underflows 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: --- I attempted to implement buffer-overflow (and underflow) detection for GCC = 12, trying to categorize all region accesses as either: (a) definitely in-bounds (b) definitely out-of-bounds (c) possibly out-of-bounds Unfortunately my implementation led to a "wall of noise" level of warnings = from (c). It now strikes me that we could at least implement warnings for (b) - where we can see definite problems, and that this might be at least somewhat useful. Compare with: =20 https://clang.llvm.org/docs/analyzer/checkers.html#alpha-security-arrayboun= d-c =20 https://clang.llvm.org/docs/analyzer/checkers.html#alpha-security-arrayboun= dv2-c Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105887 [Bug 105887] [meta-bug] clang analyzer warnings that GCC's -fanalyzer could implement=