steakhal requested changes to this revision. steakhal added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed.
In D91000#2465514 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91000#2465514>, @ktomi996 wrote: > In D91000#2382562 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91000#2382562>, @steakhal wrote: > >> Quoting the revision summary: >> >>> This checker guards against using some vulnerable C functions which are >>> mentioned in MSC24-C in obsolescent functions table. >> >> Why don't we check the rest of the functions as well? >> `asctime`, `atof`, `atoi`, `atol`, `atoll`, `ctime`, `fopen`, `freopen`, >> `rewind`, `setbuf` >> >> Hm, I get that `cert-err34-c` will already diagnose the uses of `atof`, >> `atoi`, `atol`, `atoll`, but then why do we check `vfscanf`, `vscanf` then? >> We should probably omit these, while documenting this. >> On the other hand, I would recommend checking `asctime`, `ctime`, `fopen`, >> `freopen`, `rewind`, `setbuf` for the sake of completeness. > > I only check functions which are in Unchecked Obsolescent Functions without > setbuf because setbuf does not have a safer alternative in Annex K. > https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/MSC24-C.+Do+not+use+deprecated+or+obsolescent+functions From the user's point of view, it does not matter if the //safer alternative// is inside //annex K// or not. IMO if the //CERT// rule says that don't use any of these functions but use these //other// functions instead. If we don't check all of them in the list, this checker is incomplete. The name of this checker might lead the user to a false sense of security. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91000/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91000 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
