Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Migration of unmigrated content due to installation of a new plugin

Tags (Labels)

Tag

Meaning

section

Pages that form the main sections of this standard and that are listed in the Section Index on the SEI CERT C Coding Standard page.

links-to-void

Guidelines with links to a rule in 6 The Void. The link should be removed.

update-checker

Guidelines that have been significantly changed since the checker was coded. The checker needs updating.

incomplete

Pages that need work.

deleteme

Pages that need to be deleted. See also void below.

citations-incomplete

Pages that have problems with the citations at the bottom.

sidebar

Pages with comments that might make good sidebars.

exportable-c

Guidelines in other CERT secure coding standards (residing in other Wiki spaces) that might make good C guidelines. Port to C those rules that are truly applicable.

exportable-java

Guidelines that might be candidates for adoption in the SEI CERT Oracle Coding Standard for Java.

void

Pages tagged for elimination from the standard and that are listed in 6 The Void.

ROSE-Specific Tags (Labels)

Pages now have tags (also known as


Wiki Markup
{doc://display/DOC/Working with Labels Overview}Labels{doc}


) to indicate the status of their corresponding checker in Compass Rose:


Tag

Meaning

rose-complete

ROSE catches all violations

rose-partial

ROSE catches some violations

rose-possible

ROSE could catch some or all violations, but doesn't yet.

rose-gcc

ROSE doesn't catch violations, but will soon, GCC catches violations

unenforceable

These rules can't be checked automatically.

rose-nonapplicable

These rules could be checked automatically in theory, but not by ROSE.

rose-na-macros

ROSE could check these rules if it recognized macro usage.

rose-na-multiple-files

ROSE could check these rules if it operated on multiple files at once.

rose-false-positive

ROSE could enforce this rule, but could not avoid catching some false positives.

At this point, all rules should have one of these tags. That is, they should be completely or partially checked by ROSE, or they should be marked 'rose-possible', in that we will try to check them with ROSE, or they should have one of the nonapplicable tags indicating we don't think they can be checked with ROSE

Pages that need work have an incomplete tag.
Pages that need to be deleted have a deleteme tag.
Pages that need to be reviewed have an review tag.

Run spider with new changes.

Incomplete pages in C++ use their own incomplete-cpp tag.
Incomplete pages in Java use their own incomplete-java tag.

Pages now have tags to indicate the status of their corresponding checker in Compass Rose.
Complete rules are tagged rose-complete.
Partially complete rules are tagged rose-partial.
Rules that simply cannot be enforced by Rose are tagged rose-nonapplicable.
Rules that could be easily done in Rose are tagged rose-possible.

References at the bottom of rules need a lot of work, here are some problem pages (based on broken/non-existent links)

  • FLP02 is missing a risk assessment
  • ERR06 is missing a risk assessment

Rule/Recommendation about floating point exceptions

  • what in particular should be written about these? should this go under Signals b/c of SIGFPE or under FLP02 as that is already started? - alexv 4/15

I thought Abhijit Rao was going to replace FLP02-A with FLP03-A. Detect and handle floating point errors, but instead he create a new recommendation.

I think the plan should be to consolidate these two recommendations into FLP02-A. This will also solve the problem that "FLP02 is missing a risk assessment"

I've looked at some of the C rules and recommendations, and here are my
recommendations (smile) for copying them across to C++.

DCL05-A - OK more-or-less as is.
DCL06-A - OK more-or-less as is.
DCL07-A - needs rethinking for C++.
DCL09-A - not appropriate for C++ because of ERR00-A.
DCL10-A - needs some reworking for C++ (note that ISO/IEC 14882-2003
does not use the term "variadic function").
DCL11-A - ditto.
DCL12-A - perhaps needs reworking for C++.
DCL30-C - needs reworking for C++.
DCL32-C - what are the C++ requirements on identifier length?
DCL33-C - not applicable?
DCL34-C - OK more-or-less as is.
DCL35-C - OK more-or-less as is, but need to change printf's in CS.
DCL36-C - needs reworking for C++.

EXP00-A - OK more-or-less as is.
EXP01-A - needs different examples.
EXP03-A - needs different examples.
EXP04-A - OK more-or-less as is.
EXP07-A - needs rethinking for C++.
EXP08-A - perhaps already covered by OBJ30-C.
EXP09-A - OK more-or-less as is.
EXP34-C - perhaps covered by DAN34-C.
EXP35-C - this appears to require some rethinking anyway.
EXP36-C - needs some thought for C++.

INT00-A - needs reworking for C++.
INT07-A - needs reworking for C++.
INT30-C - needs reworking for C++.
INT35-C - needs reworking for C++.
INT37-C - needs reworking for C++.

That's as far as I got.

By "OK more-or-less as is" I mean that it can be copied over as it is
but the references to C and the C Standard clearly must be changed to
C++.

When you copy this rule over to the C++ side:

FIO34-C. Use int to capture the return value of character IO functions

Be sure to add something about istream::get() which return int values, not char values.


...

It might also be worth giving these another look.

...