Related
First of all, I use C# 4.0 to parse the code of a VB6 application.
I have some old VB6 code and about 500+ copies of it. And I use a regular expression to grab all kinds of global variables from the code. The code is described as "Yuck" and some poor victim still has to support this. So I'm hoping to help this poor sucker a bit by generating overviews of specific constants. (And yes, it should be rewritten but it ain't broke, so...)
This is a sample of a code line I need to match, in this case all boolean constants:
Public Const gDemo = False 'Is this a demo version
And this is the regular expression I use at this moment:
Public\s+Const\s+g(?'Name'[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*)\s+=\s+(?'Value'[0-9]*)
And I think it too is yuckie, since the * at the end of the boolean group. But if I don't use it, it will only return 'T' or 'F'. I want the whole word.
Is this the proper RegEx to use as solution or is there an even nicer-looking option?
FYI, I use similar regexs to find all string constants and all numeric constants. Those work just fine. And basically the same .BAS file is used for all 50 copies but with different values for all these variables. By parsing all files, we have a good overview of how every version is configured.
And again, yes, we need to rebuild the whole project from scratch since it becomes harder to maintain these days. But it works and we need the manpower for other tasks. It just needs the occasional tweaks...
You can use: Public\s+Const\s+g(?<Name>[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*)\s+=\s+(?<Value>False|True)
demo
There is probably a very obvious answer to this, but I was wondering how the compiler knows which line of code my error is on. In some cases it even knows the column.
The only way I can think to do this is to tokenize the input string into a 2D array. This would store [lines][tokens].
C/C++ could be tokenized into 1 long 1D array which would probably be more efficient. I am wondering what the usual parsing method would be that would keep line information.
actually most of it is covered in the dragon book.
Compilers do Lexing/Parsing i.e.: transforming the source code into a tree representation.
When doing so each keyword variable etc. is associated with a line and column number.
However during parsing the exact origin of the failure might get lost and the information might be off.
This is the first step in the long, complicated path towards "Engineering a Compiler" or Compilers Theory
The short answer to that is: there's a module called "front-end" that usually takes care of many phases:
Scanning
Parsing
IR generator
IR optimizer ...
The structure isn't fixed so each compiler will have its own set of modules but more or less the steps involved in the front-end processing are
Scanning - maps character streams into words (also ignores whitespaces/comments) or tokens
Parsing - this is where syntax and (some) semantic analysis take place and where syntax errors are reported
To make this up to you: the compiler knows the location of your error because when something doesn't fit into a structure called "abstract syntax tree" (i.e. it cannot be constructed) or doesn't follow any of the syntax-directed translation rules, well.. there's something wrong and the compiler indicates the location where this didn't happen. If there's a grammar error on just one word/token then even a precise column location can be returned since nothing matched a terminal keyword: a basic token like the if keyword in the C/C++ language.
If you want to know more about this topic my suggestion is to start with the classic academic approach of the "Compiler Book" or "Dragon Book" and then, later on, possibly study an open-source front-end like Clang
I am looking to find out why strncpy is considered insecure. Does anybody have any sort of documentation on this or examples of an exploit using it?
Take a look at this site; it's a fairly detailed explanation. Basically, strncpy() doesn't require NUL termination, and is therefore susceptible to a variety of exploits.
The original problem is obviously that strcpy(3) was not a memory-safe operation, so an attacker could supply a string longer than the buffer which would overwrite code on the stack, and if carefully arranged, could execute arbitrary code from the attacker.
But strncpy(3) has another problem in that it doesn't supply null termination in every case at the destination. (Imagine a source string longer than the destination buffer.) Future operations may expect conforming C nul-terminated strings between equally sized buffers and malfunction downstream when the result is copied to yet a third buffer.
Using strncpy(3) is better than strcpy(3) but things like strlcpy(3) are better still.
To safely use strncpy, one must either (1) manually stick a null character onto the result buffer, (2) know that the buffer ends with a null beforehand, and pass (length-1) to strncpy, or (3) know that the buffer will never be copied using any method that won't bound its length to the buffer length.
It's important to note that strncpy will zero-fill everything in the buffer past the copied string, while other length-limited strcpy variants will not. This may at some cases be a performance drain, but in other cases be a security advantage. For example, if one used strlcpy to copy "supercalifragilisticexpalidocious" into a buffer and then to copy "it", the buffer would hold "it^ercalifragilisticexpalidocious^" (using "^" to represent a zero byte). If the buffer gets copied to a fixed-sized format, the extra data might tag along with it.
The question is based on a "loaded" premise, which makes the question itself invalid.
The bottom line here is that strncpy is not considered insecure and has never been considered insecure. The only claims of "insecurity" that can be attached to that function are the broad claims of general insecurity of C memory model and C language itself. (But that is obviously a completely different topic).
Within the realm of C language the misguided belief of some kind of "insecurity" inherent in strncpy is derived from the widespread dubious pattern of using strncpy for "safe string copying", i.e. something this function does not do and has never been intended for. Such usage is indeed highly error prone. But even if you put an equality sign between "highly error prone" and "insecure", it is still a usage problem (i.e. a lack of education problem) not a strncpy problem.
Basically, one can say that the only problem with strncpy is a unfortunate naming, which makes newbie programmers assume that they understand what this function does instead of actually reading the specification. Looking at the function name an incompetent programmer assumes that strncpy is a "safe version" of strcpy, while in reality these two functions are completely unrelated.
Exactly the same claim can be made against the division operator, for one example. As most of you know, one of the most frequently-asked questions about C language goes as "I assumed that 1/2 will evaluate to 0.5 but I got 0 instead. Why?" Yet, we don't claim that the division operator is insecure just because language beginners tend to misinterpret its behavior.
For another example, we don't call pseudo-random number generator functions "insecure" just because incompetent programmers are often unpleasantly surprised by the fact that their output is not truly random.
That is exactly how it is with strncpy function. Just like it takes time for beginner programmers to learn what pseudo-random number generators actually do, it takes them time to learn what strncpy actually does. It takes time to learn that strncpy is a conversion function, intended for converting zero-terminated strings to fixed-width strings. It takes time to learn that strncpy has absolutely nothing to do with "safe string copying" and can't be meaningfully used for that purpose.
Granted, it usually takes much longer for a language student to learn the purpose of strncpy than to sort things out with the division operator. However, this is a basis for any "insecurity" claims against strncpy.
P.S. The CERT document linked in the accepted answer is dedicated to exactly that: to demonstrate the insecurities of the typical incompetent abuse of strncpy function as a "safe" version of strcpy. It is not in any way intended to claim that strncpy itself is somehow insecure.
A pathc of Git 2.19 (Q3 2018) finds that it is too easy to misuse system API functions such as strcat(); strncpy(); ... and forbids those functions in this codebase.
See commit e488b7a, commit cc8fdae, commit 1b11b64 (24 Jul 2018), and commit c8af66a (26 Jul 2018) by Jeff King (peff).
(Merged by Junio C Hamano -- gitster -- in commit e28daf2, 15 Aug 2018)
banned.h: mark strcat() as banned
The strcat() function has all of the same overflow problems as strcpy().
And as a bonus, it's easy to end up accidentally quadratic, as each subsequent call has to walk through the existing string.
The last strcat() call went away in f063d38 (daemon: use
cld->env_array when re-spawning, 2015-09-24, Git 2.7.0).
In general, strcat() can be replaced either with a dynamic string
(strbuf or xstrfmt), or with xsnprintf if you know the length is bounded.
I just read about the FastFormat C++ i/o formatting library, and it seems too good to be true: Faster even than printf, typesafe, and with what I consider a pleasing interface:
// prints: "This formats the remaining arguments based on their order - in this case we put 1 before zero, followed by 1 again"
fastformat::fmt(std::cout, "This formats the remaining arguments based on their order - in this case we put {1} before {0}, followed by {1} again", "zero", 1);
// prints: "This writes each argument in the order, so first zero followed by 1"
fastformat::write(std::cout, "This writes each argument in the order, so first ", "zero", " followed by ", 1);
This looks almost too good to be true. Is there a catch? Have you had good, bad or indifferent experiences with it?
Is there a 'catch' with FastFormat?
Last time I checked, there was one annoying catch:
You can only use either the narrow string version or the wide string version of this library. (The functions for wchar_t and char are the same -- which type is used is a compile time switch.)
With iostreams, stdio or Boost.Format you can use both.
Found one "catch", though for most people it will never manifest. From the project page:
Atomic operation. It doesn't write out statement elements one at a time, like the IOStreams, so has no atomicity issues
The only way I can see this happening is if it buffers the whole write() call's output itself, then writes it out to the ostream in one step. This means it needs to allocate memory, and if an object passed into the write() call produces a lot of output (several megabytes or more), it can consume up to twice that much memory in internal buffers (assuming it uses the grow-a-buffer-by-doubling-its-size-each-time trick).
If you're just using it for logging, and not, say, dumping huge amounts of XML, you'll never see this problem.
The only other "catch" I'm seeing is:
Highly portable. It will work with all good modern C++ compilers; it even works with Visual C++ 6!
So it won't work with an old C++ compiler, like cfront, whereas iostreams is backward compatible to the late 80's. Again, I'd be surprised if anyone ever had a problem with this.
Although FastFormat is a good library there are a number of issues with it:
Limited formatting support, in particular the following features are not supported:
Leading zeros (or any other non-space padding)
Octal/hexadecimal encoding
Runtime width/alignment specification
The library is quite big for a relatively small task of formatting and has even bigger dependency (STLSoft).
It looks pretty interesting indeed! Good tip regardless, and +1 for that!
I've been playing with it for a bit. The main drawback I see is that FastFormat supports less formatting options for the output. This is I think a direct consequence of the way the higher typesafety is achieved, and a good tradeoff depending on your circumstances.
If you look in detail at his performance benchmark page, you'll notice that good old C printf-family functions are still winning on Linux. In fact, the only test case where they perform poorly is the test case that should be static string concatenations, where I would expect printf to be wasteful. Moreover, GCC provides static type-checking on printf-style function calls, so the benefit of type-safety is reduced. So: if you are running on Linux and if you need the absolute best performance, FastFormat is probably not the optimal solution.
The library depends on a couple of environment variables, as mentioned in the docs.
That might be no biggie to some people, but I'd prefer my code to be as self-contained as possible. If I check it out from source control, it should work and compile. It won't, if it requires you to set environment variables.
I was working with a new C++ developer a while back when he asked the question: "Why can't variable names start with numbers?"
I couldn't come up with an answer except that some numbers can have text in them (123456L, 123456U) and that wouldn't be possible if the compilers were thinking everything with some amount of alpha characters was a variable name.
Was that the right answer? Are there any more reasons?
string 2BeOrNot2Be = "that is the question"; // Why won't this compile?
Because then a string of digits would be a valid identifier as well as a valid number.
int 17 = 497;
int 42 = 6 * 9;
String 1111 = "Totally text";
Well think about this:
int 2d = 42;
double a = 2d;
What is a? 2.0? or 42?
Hint, if you don't get it, d after a number means the number before it is a double literal
It's a convention now, but it started out as a technical requirement.
In the old days, parsers of languages such as FORTRAN or BASIC did not require the uses of spaces. So, basically, the following are identical:
10 V1=100
20 PRINT V1
and
10V1=100
20PRINTV1
Now suppose that numeral prefixes were allowed. How would you interpret this?
101V=100
as
10 1V = 100
or as
101 V = 100
or as
1 01V = 100
So, this was made illegal.
Because backtracking is avoided in lexical analysis while compiling. A variable like:
Apple;
the compiler will know it's a identifier right away when it meets letter 'A'.
However a variable like:
123apple;
compiler won't be able to decide if it's a number or identifier until it hits 'a', and it needs backtracking as a result.
Compilers/parsers/lexical analyzers was a long, long time ago for me, but I think I remember there being difficulty in unambiguosly determining whether a numeric character in the compilation unit represented a literal or an identifier.
Languages where space is insignificant (like ALGOL and the original FORTRAN if I remember correctly) could not accept numbers to begin identifiers for that reason.
This goes way back - before special notations to denote storage or numeric base.
I agree it would be handy to allow identifiers to begin with a digit. One or two people have mentioned that you can get around this restriction by prepending an underscore to your identifier, but that's really ugly.
I think part of the problem comes from number literals such as 0xdeadbeef, which make it hard to come up with easy to remember rules for identifiers that can start with a digit. One way to do it might be to allow anything matching [A-Za-z_]+ that is NOT a keyword or number literal. The problem is that it would lead to weird things like 0xdeadpork being allowed, but not 0xdeadbeef. Ultimately, I think we should be fair to all meats :P.
When I was first learning C, I remember feeling the rules for variable names were arbitrary and restrictive. Worst of all, they were hard to remember, so I gave up trying to learn them. I just did what felt right, and it worked pretty well. Now that I've learned alot more, it doesn't seem so bad, and I finally got around to learning it right.
It's likely a decision that came for a few reasons, when you're parsing the token you only have to look at the first character to determine if it's an identifier or literal and then send it to the correct function for processing. So that's a performance optimization.
The other option would be to check if it's not a literal and leave the domain of identifiers to be the universe minus the literals. But to do this you would have to examine every character of every token to know how to classify it.
There is also the stylistic implications identifiers are supposed to be mnemonics so words are much easier to remember than numbers. When a lot of the original languages were being written setting the styles for the next few decades they weren't thinking about substituting "2" for "to".
Variable names cannot start with a digit, because it can cause some problems like below:
int a = 2;
int 2 = 5;
int c = 2 * a;
what is the value of c? is 4, or is 10!
another example:
float 5 = 25;
float b = 5.5;
is first 5 a number, or is an object (. operator)
There is a similar problem with second 5.
Maybe, there are some other reasons. So, we shouldn't use any digit in the beginnig of a variable name.
The restriction is arbitrary. Various Lisps permit symbol names to begin with numerals.
COBOL allows variables to begin with a digit.
Use of a digit to begin a variable name makes error checking during compilation or interpertation a lot more complicated.
Allowing use of variable names that began like a number would probably cause huge problems for the language designers. During source code parsing, whenever a compiler/interpreter encountered a token beginning with a digit where a variable name was expected, it would have to search through a huge, complicated set of rules to determine whether the token was really a variable, or an error. The added complexity added to the language parser may not justify this feature.
As far back as I can remember (about 40 years), I don't think that I have ever used a language that allowed use of a digit to begin variable names. I'm sure that this was done at least once. Maybe, someone here has actually seen this somewhere.
As several people have noticed, there is a lot of historical baggage about valid formats for variable names. And language designers are always influenced by what they know when they create new languages.
That said, pretty much all of the time a language doesn't allow variable names to begin with numbers is because those are the rules of the language design. Often it is because such a simple rule makes the parsing and lexing of the language vastly easier. Not all language designers know this is the real reason, though. Modern lexing tools help, because if you tried to define it as permissible, they will give you parsing conflicts.
OTOH, if your language has a uniquely identifiable character to herald variable names, it is possible to set it up for them to begin with a number. Similar rule variations can also be used to allow spaces in variable names. But the resulting language is likely to not to resemble any popular conventional language very much, if at all.
For an example of a fairly simple HTML templating language that does permit variables to begin with numbers and have embedded spaces, look at Qompose.
Because if you allowed keyword and identifier to begin with numberic characters, the lexer (part of the compiler) couldn't readily differentiate between the start of a numeric literal and a keyword without getting a whole lot more complicated (and slower).
C++ can't have it because the language designers made it a rule. If you were to create your own language, you could certainly allow it, but you would probably run into the same problems they did and decide not to allow it. Examples of variable names that would cause problems:
0x, 2d, 5555
One of the key problems about relaxing syntactic conventions is that it introduces cognitive dissonance into the coding process. How you think about your code could be deeply influenced by the lack of clarity this would introduce.
Wasn't it Dykstra who said that the "most important aspect of any tool is its effect on its user"?
The compiler has 7 phase as follows:
Lexical analysis
Syntax Analysis
Semantic Analysis
Intermediate Code Generation
Code Optimization
Code Generation
Symbol Table
Backtracking is avoided in the lexical analysis phase while compiling the piece of code. The variable like Apple, the compiler will know its an identifier right away when it meets letter ‘A’ character in the lexical Analysis phase. However, a variable like 123apple, the compiler won’t be able to decide if its a number or identifier until it hits ‘a’ and it needs backtracking to go in the lexical analysis phase to identify that it is a variable. But it is not supported in the compiler.
When you’re parsing the token you only have to look at the first character to determine if it’s an identifier or literal and then send it to the correct function for processing. So that’s a performance optimization.
Probably because it makes it easier for the human to tell whether it's a number or an identifier, and because of tradition. Having identifiers that could begin with a digit wouldn't complicate the lexical scans all that much.
Not all languages have forbidden identifiers beginning with a digit. In Forth, they could be numbers, and small integers were normally defined as Forth words (essentially identifiers), since it was faster to read "2" as a routine to push a 2 onto the stack than to recognize "2" as a number whose value was 2. (In processing input from the programmer or the disk block, the Forth system would split up the input according to spaces. It would try to look the token up in the dictionary to see if it was a defined word, and if not would attempt to translate it into a number, and if not would flag an error.)
Suppose you did allow symbol names to begin with numbers. Now suppose you want to name a variable 12345foobar. How would you differentiate this from 12345? It's actually not terribly difficult to do with a regular expression. The problem is actually one of performance. I can't really explain why this is in great detail, but it essentially boils down to the fact that differentiating 12345foobar from 12345 requires backtracking. This makes the regular expression non-deterministic.
There's a much better explanation of this here.
it is easy for a compiler to identify a variable using ASCII on memory location rather than number .
I think the simple answer is that it can, the restriction is language based. In C++ and many others it can't because the language doesn't support it. It's not built into the rules to allow that.
The question is akin to asking why can't the King move four spaces at a time in Chess? It's because in Chess that is an illegal move. Can it in another game sure. It just depends on the rules being played by.
Originally it was simply because it is easier to remember (you can give it more meaning) variable names as strings rather than numbers although numbers can be included within the string to enhance the meaning of the string or allow the use of the same variable name but have it designated as having a separate, but close meaning or context. For example loop1, loop2 etc would always let you know that you were in a loop and/or loop 2 was a loop within loop1.
Which would you prefer (has more meaning) as a variable: address or 1121298? Which is easier to remember?
However, if the language uses something to denote that it not just text or numbers (such as the $ in $address) it really shouldn't make a difference as that would tell the compiler that what follows is to be treated as a variable (in this case).
In any case it comes down to what the language designers want to use as the rules for their language.
The variable may be considered as a value also during compile time by the compiler
so the value may call the value again and again recursively
Backtracking is avoided in lexical analysis phase while compiling the piece of code. The variable like Apple; , the compiler will know its a identifier right away when it meets letter ‘A’ character in the lexical Analysis phase. However, a variable like 123apple; , compiler won’t be able to decide if its a number or identifier until it hits ‘a’ and it needs backtracking to go in the lexical analysis phase to identify that it is a variable. But it is not supported in compiler.
Reference
There could be nothing wrong with it when comes into declaring variable.but there is some ambiguity when it tries to use that variable somewhere else like this :
let 1 = "Hello world!"
print(1)
print(1)
print is a generic method that accepts all types of variable. so in that situation compiler does not know which (1) the programmer refers to : the 1 of integer value or the 1 that store a string value.
maybe better for compiler in this situation to allows to define something like that but when trying to use this ambiguous stuff, bring an error with correction capability to how gonna fix that error and clear this ambiguity.