Add bugprone-sprintf-argument-overlap #114244

ccotter · 2024-10-30T14:58:41Z

No description provided.

llvmbot · 2024-10-30T14:59:16Z

@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-tools-extra

@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-tidy

Author: Chris Cotter (ccotter)

Changes

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114244.diff

8 Files Affected:

(modified) clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/BugproneTidyModule.cpp (+3)
(modified) clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/CMakeLists.txt (+1)
(added) clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.cpp (+52)
(added) clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.h (+33)
(modified) clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst (+6)
(added) clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.rst (+15)
(modified) clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst (+2-1)
(added) clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.cpp (+29)

diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/BugproneTidyModule.cpp b/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/BugproneTidyModule.cpp
index 33ac65e715ce81..ac3a08c80d7ae6 100644
--- a/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/BugproneTidyModule.cpp
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/BugproneTidyModule.cpp
@@ -86,6 +86,7 @@
 #include "TooSmallLoopVariableCheck.h"
 #include "UncheckedOptionalAccessCheck.h"
 #include "UndefinedMemoryManipulationCheck.h"
+#include "UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.h"
 #include "UndelegatedConstructorCheck.h"
 #include "UnhandledExceptionAtNewCheck.h"
 #include "UnhandledSelfAssignmentCheck.h"
@@ -248,6 +249,8 @@ class BugproneModule : public ClangTidyModule {
         "bugprone-unchecked-optional-access");
     CheckFactories.registerCheck<UndefinedMemoryManipulationCheck>(
         "bugprone-undefined-memory-manipulation");
+    CheckFactories.registerCheck<UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck>(
+        "bugprone-undefined-sprintf-overlap");
     CheckFactories.registerCheck<UndelegatedConstructorCheck>(
         "bugprone-undelegated-constructor");
     CheckFactories.registerCheck<UnhandledSelfAssignmentCheck>(
diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/CMakeLists.txt b/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/CMakeLists.txt
index b0a2318acc0597..2403ed665fd5c7 100644
--- a/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/CMakeLists.txt
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ add_clang_library(clangTidyBugproneModule STATIC
   TooSmallLoopVariableCheck.cpp
   UncheckedOptionalAccessCheck.cpp
   UndefinedMemoryManipulationCheck.cpp
+  UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.cpp
   UndelegatedConstructorCheck.cpp
   UnhandledExceptionAtNewCheck.cpp
   UnhandledSelfAssignmentCheck.cpp
diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.cpp b/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000000..5b5507c6263224
--- /dev/null
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+//===--- UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.cpp - clang-tidy --------------------===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
+//
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+#include "UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.h"
+#include "clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.h"
+
+using namespace clang::ast_matchers;
+
+namespace clang::tidy::bugprone {
+
+AST_MATCHER_P(CallExpr, hasAnyOtherArgument,
+              ast_matchers::internal::Matcher<Expr>, InnerMatcher) {
+  for (const auto *Arg : llvm::drop_begin(Node.arguments())) {
+    ast_matchers::internal::BoundNodesTreeBuilder Result(*Builder);
+    if (InnerMatcher.matches(*Arg, Finder, &Result)) {
+      *Builder = std::move(Result);
+      return true;
+    }
+  }
+  return false;
+}
+
+void UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck::registerMatchers(MatchFinder *Finder) {
+  Finder->addMatcher(
+      callExpr(
+          callee(
+              functionDecl(matchesName("(::std)?::(sn?printf)")).bind("decl")),
+          hasArgument(0, ignoringParenImpCasts(
+                             declRefExpr(to(varDecl().bind("firstArg"))))),
+          hasAnyOtherArgument(
+              ignoringParenImpCasts(declRefExpr().bind("overlappingArg")))),
+      this);
+}
+
+void UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck::check(
+    const MatchFinder::MatchResult &Result) {
+  const auto *OverlappingArg =
+      Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<DeclRefExpr>("overlappingArg");
+  const auto *FirstArg = Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<VarDecl>("firstArg");
+  const auto *FnDecl = Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<FunctionDecl>("decl");
+
+  diag(OverlappingArg->getLocation(), "argument %0 overlaps the first argument "
+                                      "in %1, which is undefined behavior")
+      << FirstArg << FnDecl;
+}
+
+} // namespace clang::tidy::bugprone
diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.h b/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.h
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000000..0e100aa1a5bfdf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.h
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+//===--- UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.h - clang-tidy ------------*- C++ -*-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
+//
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+#ifndef LLVM_CLANG_TOOLS_EXTRA_CLANG_TIDY_BUGPRONE_UNDEFINEDSPRINTFOVERLAPCHECK_H
+#define LLVM_CLANG_TOOLS_EXTRA_CLANG_TIDY_BUGPRONE_UNDEFINEDSPRINTFOVERLAPCHECK_H
+
+#include "../ClangTidyCheck.h"
+
+namespace clang::tidy::bugprone {
+
+/// FIXME: Write a short description.
+///
+/// For the user-facing documentation see:
+/// http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.html
+class UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck : public ClangTidyCheck {
+public:
+  UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck(StringRef Name, ClangTidyContext *Context)
+      : ClangTidyCheck(Name, Context) {}
+  void registerMatchers(ast_matchers::MatchFinder *Finder) override;
+  void check(const ast_matchers::MatchFinder::MatchResult &Result) override;
+  bool isLanguageVersionSupported(const LangOptions &LangOpts) const override {
+    return LangOpts.CPlusPlus;
+  }
+};
+
+} // namespace clang::tidy::bugprone
+
+#endif // LLVM_CLANG_TOOLS_EXTRA_CLANG_TIDY_BUGPRONE_UNDEFINEDSPRINTFOVERLAPCHECK_H
diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst b/clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
index ccebf74e8a67e7..7285343971189f 100644
--- a/clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
@@ -131,6 +131,12 @@ New checks
   Gives warnings for tagged unions, where the number of tags is
   different from the number of data members inside the union.
 
+- New :doc:`bugprone-undefined-sprintf-overlap
+  <clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap>` check.
+
+  Finds calls to sprintf family of functions whose first argument
+  overlaps with a subsequent argument.
+
 - New :doc:`portability-template-virtual-member-function
   <clang-tidy/checks/portability/template-virtual-member-function>` check.
 
diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.rst b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.rst
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000000..020d18a0802198
--- /dev/null
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+.. title:: clang-tidy - bugprone-undefined-sprintf-overlap
+
+bugprone-undefined-sprintf-overlap
+==================================
+
+Warns if any arguments to the sprintf family of functions overlap with the
+first argument.
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+    char buf[20] = {"hi"};
+    sprintf(buf, "%s%d", buf, 0);
+
+C99 and POSIX.1-2001 states that if copying were to take place between objects
+that overlap, the result is undefined.
diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
index d731b13fc0df44..41b7d92f94f90c 100644
--- a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
@@ -115,8 +115,8 @@ Clang-Tidy Checks
    :doc:`bugprone-multiple-new-in-one-expression <bugprone/multiple-new-in-one-expression>`,
    :doc:`bugprone-multiple-statement-macro <bugprone/multiple-statement-macro>`,
    :doc:`bugprone-no-escape <bugprone/no-escape>`,
-   :doc:`bugprone-nondeterministic-pointer-iteration-order <bugprone/nondeterministic-pointer-iteration-order>`,
    :doc:`bugprone-non-zero-enum-to-bool-conversion <bugprone/non-zero-enum-to-bool-conversion>`,
+   :doc:`bugprone-nondeterministic-pointer-iteration-order <bugprone/nondeterministic-pointer-iteration-order>`,
    :doc:`bugprone-not-null-terminated-result <bugprone/not-null-terminated-result>`, "Yes"
    :doc:`bugprone-optional-value-conversion <bugprone/optional-value-conversion>`, "Yes"
    :doc:`bugprone-parent-virtual-call <bugprone/parent-virtual-call>`, "Yes"
@@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ Clang-Tidy Checks
    :doc:`bugprone-too-small-loop-variable <bugprone/too-small-loop-variable>`,
    :doc:`bugprone-unchecked-optional-access <bugprone/unchecked-optional-access>`,
    :doc:`bugprone-undefined-memory-manipulation <bugprone/undefined-memory-manipulation>`,
+   :doc:`bugprone-undefined-sprintf-overlap <bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap>`, "Yes"
    :doc:`bugprone-undelegated-constructor <bugprone/undelegated-constructor>`,
    :doc:`bugprone-unhandled-exception-at-new <bugprone/unhandled-exception-at-new>`,
    :doc:`bugprone-unhandled-self-assignment <bugprone/unhandled-self-assignment>`,
diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.cpp b/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000000..24d2939aee2c74
--- /dev/null
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s bugprone-undefined-sprintf-overlap %t
+
+using size_t = decltype(sizeof(int));
+
+extern "C" int sprintf(char *s, const char *format, ...);
+extern "C" int snprintf(char *s, size_t n, const char *format, ...);
+
+namespace std {
+  int snprintf(char *s, size_t n, const char *format, ...);
+}
+
+void first_arg_overlaps() {
+  char buf[10];
+  sprintf(buf, "%s", buf);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:22: warning: argument 'buf' overlaps the first argument in 'sprintf', which is undefined behavior [bugprone-undefined-sprintf-overlap]
+  snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%s", buf);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:36: warning: argument 'buf' overlaps the first argument in 'snprintf', which is undefined behavior [bugprone-undefined-sprintf-overlap]
+  std::snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%s", buf);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:41: warning: argument 'buf' overlaps the first argument in 'snprintf', which is undefined behavior [bugprone-undefined-sprintf-overlap]
+
+  char* c = &buf[0];
+  sprintf(c, "%s", c);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: argument 'c' overlaps the first argument in 'sprintf', which is undefined behavior [bugprone-undefined-sprintf-overlap]
+  snprintf(c, sizeof(buf), "%s", c);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:34: warning: argument 'c' overlaps the first argument in 'snprintf', which is undefined behavior [bugprone-undefined-sprintf-overlap]
+
+  snprintf(c, sizeof(buf), "%s%s", c, c);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:36: warning: argument 'c' overlaps the first argument in 'snprintf', which is undefined behavior [bugprone-undefined-sprintf-overlap]
+}

github-actions · 2024-10-30T16:35:34Z

✅ With the latest revision this PR passed the C/C++ code formatter.

clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.cpp

clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst

clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.rst

Co-authored-by: EugeneZelenko <[email protected]>

clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst

clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.rst

Co-authored-by: EugeneZelenko <[email protected]>

ccotter · 2024-11-09T04:23:50Z

@PiotrZSL @5chmidti mind giving this a review?

5chmidti

There are some false-negatives that exist for this check:

E.g.,

  // from tests
  char bufss[10][10][10];
  sprintf(bufss[0][1], "%s", bufss[0][1]);

or *( *(bufss + 0) + 1). Though these can border on requiring, e.g., symbolic execution due to the potential complexity, and there is IMO no need to support expressions that are arbitrarily complex, but two levels of pointer indirections sounds like a solid basis to me. (the note on complexity also applies to the other points)

Also, obj.bufs[1].

The check is also only considering subscript operators that are using integer literals as offsets, and not expressions that evaluate to a constant at compile time (1+1), or plain variables. If the expression inside [] has no side effects, they will be the same and the access is overlapping: sprintf(bufs[n], "%s". bufs[n]).

WDYT? It would be nice to have some of those cases detectable

clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.cpp

clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.h

clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.rst

clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.cpp

nicovank

I have questions regarding the motivation behind adding this check:

How common is this bug?
What happens in practice at runtime?
What are existing ways of detecting this, if any?

clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.h

clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst

clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.h

clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.cpp

clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/UndefinedSprintfOverlapCheck.cpp

clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.rst

nicovank · 2024-11-10T00:12:42Z

Oops, crossed signals with @5chmidti. Hopefully not too much overlap sorry.

Co-authored-by: Nicolas van Kempen <[email protected]>

…to snprintf

ccotter · 2025-01-05T02:54:37Z

How common is this bug?

In one of our internal codebases, a sample of about 1500 files found just over 2% of the files had this bug. As we migrated platforms/standard libraries, the behavior which was previously correct (by chance) changed to be incorrect.

What happens in practice at runtime?

In practice, the formatted string can be incorrect (but no crash etc). One example is https://godbolt.org/z/3GdnPrsYj

char buf[10];
sprintf(buf, "%s", "12");
sprintf(buf, "%s%s", "34", buf);
printf("/%s/\n", buf); // 3434

What are existing ways of detecting this, if any?

None to my knowledge. After finding a couple occurrences of this bug internally, I realized clang-query/clang-tidy could easily catch this.

ccotter · 2025-01-05T03:00:16Z

Thanks both @nicovank @5chmidti for the overlapping reviews. I got sidetracked, but am coming back to hopefully finish this up.

Re: supporting more use cases, I found nearly all bugs in our codebase were of the simple form sprintf(a, "", ..., a, ...) with a simple DeclRefExpr. None were of the form sprintf(a[0][0], "", ..., a[0][0], ...) (at least, none that I couple find with a more naive grep and visual inspection), or anything else suggested above. And, since matching on other expressions more generically like more deeply nested arrays or (buf+10) led to more complex matchers, I opted for the simpler cases my check can find in its current form.

Let me look at utils::areStatementsIdentical to see if this could help expand the forms that the tool can find.

clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/BugproneTidyModule.cpp

clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/CMakeLists.txt

clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst

ccotter · 2025-01-06T15:10:06Z

Ok, all comments should be addressed. The check now uses areStatementsIdentical to more generically find buggy patterns (thanks for that suggestion!).

carlosgalvezp · 2025-01-06T22:42:45Z

Sorry for the late review, but isn't this already covered by -Wall since GCC 9? At least the example from the check documentation:

https://godbolt.org/z/es37ozqe9

warning: 'sprintf' argument 3 overlaps destination object 'buf'

If this check is not redundant given the above, it would be good document what the differences are and what failure modes it detects that GCC doesn't.

ccotter · 2025-01-07T04:57:28Z

Oh, you are entirely right. I completely missed that gcc had this check. All of my test cases are covered by gcc's check, and gcc's check is a bit smarter than mine (sprintf(stp->buf, "%s", st1.buf) is caught by gcc, but not my check).

Is this still worth adding here? I didn't see an equivalent in clang's -Wall.

carlosgalvezp · 2025-01-07T07:27:55Z

Is this still worth adding here? I didn't see an equivalent in clang's -Wall.

Indeed Clang is missing this check in -Wall. For parity with GCC it probably makes sense to add it to -Wall as well instead of being a clang-tidy check. What do you think @AaronBallman ?

AaronBallman · 2025-01-07T13:01:16Z

Is this still worth adding here? I didn't see an equivalent in clang's -Wall.

Indeed Clang is missing this check in -Wall. For parity with GCC it probably makes sense to add it to -Wall as well instead of being a clang-tidy check. What do you think @AaronBallman ?

In general, this requires dataflow analysis to get a low false-positive rate, which is typically handled via static analysis or a CFG-based analysis (which are expensive to construct for -Wall and thus usually opt-in, but we do have some such checks that have crept in so there is precedence).

Ideally, I think this check would either live in Clang under an opt-in analysis warning flag (similar to implicit fallthrough checks) or in the Clang static analyzer (CC @steakhal @haoNoQ @Xazax-hun for additional opinions). If we did that, I think this check should be generalized a bit more. 1) We could have a restrict-based check for any APIs with pointers marked restrict. 2) We could handle C library functions specially: sprintf and friends, mbstowcs, wcstombs, memcpy, memccpy, strcpy, etc.

Xazax-hun · 2025-01-07T13:06:42Z

clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone/sprintf-argument-overlap.cpp

+  sprintf((stp->buf), "%s", stp->buf);
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:29: warning: the 3rd argument in 'sprintf' overlaps the 1st argument, which is undefined behavior [bugprone-sprintf-argument-overlap]
+  stp = &st1;
+  sprintf(stp->buf, "%s", st1.buf);


It would be nice to add comments for false negatives.

Xazax-hun · 2025-01-07T13:15:42Z

this requires dataflow analysis to get a low false-positive rate

I think it might be possible to have low false positive rates without dataflow analysis. Currently, it looks like the check is looking for syntactically identical subexpressions. Those tend to overlap in most cases. That being said, I can imagine some cases where it is not really the case, like:

sprintf(st1.buf, return_format_string_and_modify_buf("%s", &st1.buf), st1.buf);

To filter these, the check would need to ensure that the pointer cannot be modified while the arguments are evaluated.

Are there any other false positives you anticipate?

That being said, we'd absolutely need dataflow analysis to reduce the number of false negatives when the arguments are not syntactically equivalent.

I think it would be OK to have a fast, syntactic check in -Wall and have a smarted dataflow-based check as opt-in somewhere else (can be compiler, tidy, or the clang static analyzer). I think implementing this check in the clang static analyzer would be relatively straightforward.

I think this check should be generalized a bit more

Huge +1. I like the generalization ideas. No matter in what form we land this, I think people would benefit a lot from that.

AaronBallman · 2025-01-07T13:27:07Z

this requires dataflow analysis to get a low false-positive rate

I think it might be possible to have low false positive rates without dataflow analysis. Currently, it looks like the check is looking for syntactically identical subexpressions. Those tend to overlap in most cases. That being said, I can imagine some cases where it is not really the case, like:
sprintf(st1.buf, return_format_string_and_modify_buf("%s", &st1.buf), st1.buf);
To filter these, the check would need to ensure that the pointer cannot be modified while the arguments are evaluated.

Are there any other false positives you anticipate?

The biggest false positive I'm worried about are successive uses of sprintf (or similar) where the buffer pointer is incremented by the return value and then used in a subsequent call. Basically, any pointer arithmetic on the buffer will lead to potential false positives.

That being said, we'd absolutely need dataflow analysis to reduce the number of false negatives when the arguments are not syntactically equivalent.

100% agreed.

I think it would be OK to have a fast, syntactic check in -Wall and have a smarted dataflow-based check as opt-in somewhere else (can be compiler, tidy, or the clang static analyzer). I think implementing this check in the clang static analyzer would be relatively straightforward.

That's an interesting thought! I think that might be plausible, depending on how good of a true positive rate we find with the -Wall check.

PiotrZSL

LGTM

PiotrZSL · 2025-01-13T20:03:51Z

clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/SprintfArgumentOverlapCheck.cpp

+  return Matched;
+}
+
+AST_MATCHER_P(Stmt, identicalTo, std::string, ID) {


there is isStatementIdenticalToBoundNode in utils/Matchers.h

PiotrZSL · 2025-01-13T20:06:29Z

clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/SprintfArgumentOverlapCheck.h

+  }
+
+private:
+  const std::string SprintfRegex;


Note: llvm::StringRef should be fine here

llvmbot added clang-tools-extra clang-tidy labels Oct 30, 2024

ccotter force-pushed the snprintf branch from db0163b to be4002a Compare October 30, 2024 18:22

Add bugprone-sprintf-overlap

fd914cc

ccotter force-pushed the snprintf branch from be4002a to fd914cc Compare October 31, 2024 02:16

EugeneZelenko reviewed Oct 31, 2024

View reviewed changes

EugeneZelenko requested review from PiotrZSL, SimplyDanny, 5chmidti and HerrCai0907 October 31, 2024 14:50

ccotter and others added 2 commits October 31, 2024 11:13

Apply suggestions from code review

004719c

Co-authored-by: EugeneZelenko <[email protected]>

Review feedback

d69c69a

EugeneZelenko reviewed Oct 31, 2024

View reviewed changes

clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/undefined-sprintf-overlap.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ccotter changed the title ~~Add bugprone-sprintf-overlap~~ Add bugprone-undefined-sprintf-overlap Oct 31, 2024

Apply suggestions from code review

1984c94

Co-authored-by: EugeneZelenko <[email protected]>

ccotter mentioned this pull request Nov 2, 2024

[clang][NFC] Spell out DynTypedNode instead of auto #114427

Merged

Remove custom matcher

75103a2

5chmidti requested changes Nov 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

nicovank reviewed Nov 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

ccotter and others added 6 commits January 4, 2025 19:41

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into snprintf

ab472f0

Review feedback

84ded5f

Apply suggestions from code review

cefd652

Co-authored-by: Nicolas van Kempen <[email protected]>

Merge branch 'snprintf' of https://github.com/ccotter/llvm-project in…

e5012cd

…to snprintf

format

680b94e

Add example of incorrect behavior

bb6d7f7

ccotter added 3 commits January 5, 2025 20:42

Support more expressions with areStatementsIdentical

32f9d3f

Use argument number instead of argument text

357350e

Rename tool

292752b

ccotter force-pushed the snprintf branch from 186e7e3 to 292752b Compare January 6, 2025 03:14

EugeneZelenko reviewed Jan 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/BugproneTidyModule.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tidy up

3e1abf8

EugeneZelenko reviewed Jan 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/BugproneTidyModule.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/CMakeLists.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ccotter added 7 commits January 5, 2025 23:04

Fix rename operation

c8f5764

Fix sort

a699e1d

Fix arg index

b62b615

format

74c3a7b

fix docs

27ca8d4

Remove unused matcher

21af986

Move logic into matchers

0126bb6

ccotter changed the title ~~Add bugprone-undefined-sprintf-overlap~~ Add bugprone-sprintf-argument-overlap Jan 6, 2025

Fix sort

bbbd133

Xazax-hun reviewed Jan 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

PiotrZSL approved these changes Jan 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

Add bugprone-sprintf-argument-overlap #114244

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add bugprone-sprintf-argument-overlap #114244

Uh oh!

Conversation

ccotter commented Oct 30, 2024

Uh oh!

llvmbot commented Oct 30, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Oct 30, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ccotter commented Nov 9, 2024

Uh oh!

5chmidti left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nicovank left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nicovank commented Nov 10, 2024

Uh oh!

ccotter commented Jan 5, 2025

Uh oh!

ccotter commented Jan 5, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ccotter commented Jan 6, 2025

Uh oh!

carlosgalvezp commented Jan 6, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ccotter commented Jan 7, 2025

Uh oh!

carlosgalvezp commented Jan 7, 2025

Uh oh!

AaronBallman commented Jan 7, 2025

Uh oh!

Xazax-hun Jan 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Xazax-hun commented Jan 7, 2025

Uh oh!

AaronBallman commented Jan 7, 2025

Uh oh!

PiotrZSL left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

PiotrZSL Jan 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

llvmbot commented Oct 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Oct 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

carlosgalvezp commented Jan 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading