Tag Archives: cURL and libcurl

cURL and libcurl, Development, Open Source, Web

The curl year 2012

1 Comment
2012

So what did happen in the curl project during 2012?

First some basic stats

We shipped 6 releases with 199 identified bug fixes and some 40 other changes. That makes on average 33 bug fixes shipped every 61st day or a little over one bug fix done every second day. All this done with about 1000 commits to the git repository, which is roughly the same amount of git activity as 2010 and 2011. We merged commits from 72 different authors, which is a slight increase from the 62 in 2010 and 68 in 2011.

On our main development mailing list, the curl-library list, we now have 1300 subscribers and during 2012 it got about 3500 postings from almost 500 different From addresses. To no surprise, I posted by far the largest amount of mails there (847) with the number two poster being Günter Knauf who posted 151 times. Four more members posted more than 100 times: Steve Holme (145), Dan Fandrich (131), Marc Hoersken (130) and Yang Tse (107). Last year I sent 1175 mails to the same list…

Notable events

I’ve walked through the biggest changes and fixes and here are the particular ones I found stood out during this otherwise rather calm and laid back curl year. Possibly in a rough order of importance…

  1. We started the year with two security vulnerability announcements, regarding an SSL weakness and an injection flaw. They were reported in 2011 though and we didn’t get any further security alerts during 2012 which I think is good. Or a sign that nobody has been looking close enough…
  2. We got two interesting additions in the SSL backend department almost simultaneously. We got native Windows support with the use of the schannel subsystem and we got native Mac OS X support with the use of Darwin SSL. Thanks to these, we can now offer SSL-enabled libcurls on those operating systems without relying on third party SSL libraries.
  3. The VERIFYHOST debacle took off with “security researchers” throwing accusations and insults, ending with us releasing a curl release with the bug removed. It did however unfortunately lead to some follow-up problems in for example the PHP binding.
  4. During the autumn, the brokeness of WSApoll was identified, and we now build libcurl without it and as a result libcurl now works better on Windows!
  5. In an attempt to allow libcurl-using applications to avoid select() and its problems, we introduced the new public function curl_multi_wait. It avoids the FD_SETSIZE limit and makes it harder to screw up…
  6. The overly bloated User-Agent string for the curl tool was dramatically shortened when we cut out all the subsystems/libraries and their version numbers from the string. Now there’s only curl and its version number left. Nice and clean.
  7. In July we finally introduced metalink support in the curl tool with the curl 7.27.0 release. It’s been one of those things we’ve discussed for ages that finally came through and became reality.
  8. With the brand new HTTP CONNECT support in the test suite we suddenly could get much improved test cases that does SSL or just tunnel through an HTTP proxy with the CONNECT request. It of course helps us avoid regressions and otherwise improve curl and libcurl.

What didn’t happen

  1. I made an attempt to get the spindly hacking going, but I’ve mostly failed with that effort. I have personally not had enough time and energy to work on it, and the interest from the rest of the world seems luke warm at best.
  2. HTTP pipelining. Linus Nielsen Feltzing has a patch series in the works with a much improved pipelining support for libcurl. I’ll write a separate post about it once it gets in. Obviously we failed to merge it before the end of the year.
  3. Some of my friends like to mock me about curl not being completely IPv6 friendly due to its lack of support for Happy Eyeballs, and of course they’re right. Making curl just do two connects on IPv6-enabled machines should be a fairly small change but yet I haven’t yet managed to get into actually implementing it…
  4. DANE is SSL cert verification with records from DNS thanks to DNSSEC. Firefox has some experiments going and Chrome already supports it. This is a technology that truly can improve HTTPS going forwards and allow us to avoid the annoyingly weak and broken CA model…

I won’t promise that any of these will happen during 2013 but I can promise there will be efforts…

The Future

I wrote a separate post a short while ago about the HTTP2 progress, and I expect 2013 to bring much more details and discussions in that area. Will we get SRV record support soon? Or perhaps even URI records? Will some of the recent discussions about new HTTP auth schemes develop into something that will reach the internet in the coming year?

In libcurl we will switch to an internal design that is purely non-blocking with a lot of if-then-that-else source code removed for checks which interface that is used. I’ll make a follow-up post with details about that as well as soon as it actually happens.

Our Responsibility

curl and libcurl are considered pillars in the internet world by now. This year I’ve heard from several places by independent sources how people consider support by curl to be an important driver for internet technology. As long as we don’t have it, it hasn’t really reached everyone and that things won’t get adopted for real in the Internet community until curl has it supported. As father of the project it makes me proud and humble, but I also feel the responsibility of making sure that we continue to do the right thing the right way.

I also realize that this position of ours is not automatically glued to us, we need to keep up the good stuff to make it stick.

cURL

cURL and libcurl, Web

HTTP2, SPDY and spindly right now

1 Comment

SPDYOn November 28, the HTTPbis group within the IETF published the first draft for the upcoming HTTP2 protocol. What is being posted now is a start and a foundation for further discussions and changes. It is basically an import of the SPDY version 3 protocol draft.

There’s been a lot of resistance within the HTTPbis to the mandated TLS that SPDY has been promoting so far and it seems unlikely to reach a consensus as-is. There’s also been a lot of discussion and debate over the compression SPDY uses. Not only because of the pre-populated dictionary that might already be a little out of date or the fact that gzip compression consumes a notable amount of memory per stream, but also recently the security aspect to compression thanks to the CRIME attack.

Meanwhile, the discussions on the spdy development list have brought up several changes to the version 3 that are suggested and planned to become part of the version 4 that is work in progress. Including a new compression algorithm, shorter length fields (now 16bit) and more. Recently discussions have brought up a need for better flexibility when it comes to prioritization and especially changing prio run-time. For like when browser users switch tabs or simply scroll down the page and you rather have the images you have in sight to load before the images you no longer have in view…

I started my work on Spindly a little over a year ago to build a stand-alone library, primarily intended for libcurl so that we could soon offer SPDY downloads for it. We’re still only on SPDY protocol 2 there and I’ve failed to attract any fellow developers to the project and my own lack of time has basically made the project not evolve the way I wanted it to. I haven’t given up on it though. I hope to be able to get back to it eventually, very much also depending on how the HTTPbis talk goes. I certainly am determined to have libcurl be part of the upcoming HTTP2 experiments (even if that is not happening very soon) and spindly might very well be the infrastructure that powers libcurl then.

We’ll see…

Blogging

“haking”

(This is an authentic email we received at Haxx the other day. Names, emails and URLs are replaced in this excerpt to save the innocent)

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:59:25
Subject: haking

hello, can you tell me how to hack into web site:
[FIRST URL]
so it is showing:

[OTHER URL]
when you click on a link in google results?

for example if you click on a google result:
[URL to a google.rs search for something on the FIRST URL site]

the point is i would like to protect my web site form that kind of attack so please let me know how to do that

how did i found you? there is your address at [FIRST URL]/coockies.txt so i think you did it, but was polite enough to leave address.. please help me.

Of course I was curious enough to check the “coockies.txt” file, and the beginning of that file looked like this:

# Netscape HTTP Cookie File
# http://curlm.haxx.se/rfc/cookie_spec.html
# This file was generated by libcurl! Edit at your own risk.
[FIRST URL] FALSE	/	FALSE	0	PHPSESSID	dfn1a5ll0hs8odpfh3p2qtlcj3

This tells us a few trivial things, all of which might not be obvious to the untrained eye:

  • The file was generated by libcurl that was 7.16.0 or later, but no later than 7.18.3 as we only used the URL in that file between those releases.
  • The spelling of that cookie file is so hilarious we can guess it wasn’t a native English speaker who named it. The subject of the email is similarly bad so perhaps it was a fellow countryman of Serbia? (the TLD of the google URL was .rs after all)
  • The person doing this didn’t even try to clean up the remaining junk file(s) afterwards
  • The guy sending me the email is completely in the blue of what has happened or even who he’s contacting or my relation to this all.
  • The world can be a harsh and cruel place and it isn’t easy to know your way around all of it…
cURL and libcurl, Security

libcurl claimed to be dangerous

On October 24th, my twitter feed suddenly got more activity than usual when suddenly there’s a mention of a newly(?) published paper:

The most dangerous code in the world: validating SSL certificates in non-browser software

Within the twelve page document they discuss flaws in various APIs and other certificate checking software, and for libcurl they say:

Internally, it uses OpenSSL to verify the chain of trust and verifies the hostname itself. This functionality is controlled by parameters CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER (default value: true) and CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYHOST (default value: 2). This interface is almost perversely bad. The VERIFYPEER parameter is a boolean, while a similar-looking VERIFYHOST parameter is an integer.

(The fact that libcurl supports no less than nine(!) different SSL library backends seems to have been ignored but is irrelevant.)

The final part is their focus. It is an integer option but it looks like it could be similar to the VERIFYPEER option which could be considered a boolean option – but note that there is no boolean options at all in libcurl, those are all “long” values. They go on to explain:

Well-intentioned developers not only routinely misunderstand these parameters, but often set CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFY HOST to TRUE, thereby changing it to 1 and thus accidentally disabling hostname verification with disastrous consequences

They back up their claim with some snippets from PHP programs showing wrong use in chapter 7.

What did the authors do to try to fix the problem before posting rude comments in a report? Nothing. At. All. They could’ve emailed, tweeted or posted a bug report or patch but none of that happened.

They also only post examples of the bad use made by PHP code. The PHP code uses the PHP/CURL binding and a change could easily be done in the PHP binding. I don’t know PHP internals, but perhaps the option could be made to not accept a boolean value instead of a numerical there.

We’re now discussing this topic on the libcurl mailing list. If you have ideas or suggestions or just comments, feel free to join in!

Oh, and I feel that my recent blog post on the non-verifying users seems related and relevant.

I will also call the majority of all these suddenly appearing complainers on this API to be mostly hypocrites since the API has been established and working like this for over a 10 (ten!) years and not a single person has objected to it before. Joining up on the “bandwagon” now and calling the API stupid or silly is… well, I’d call it “non-intelligent behavior”. In libcurl we take a stable and solid API and ABI very seriously. We simply do not break API nor ABI unless forced brutally into a corner we can’t escape otherwise. Therefore we have kept this API to keep existing applications functional.

Update: the discussion thread on the topic from the PHP-DEV list. Thanks to Jan Ehrhardt.

Second update: we shipped libcurl 7.28.1 on November 20 2012, and it no longer accepts the value 1 to VERIFYHOST, but will instead cause curl_easy_setopt() return an error and use the default value (which is 2). This will prevent applications to accidentally be insecure due to use of 1.

cURL and libcurl, Network

WSAPoll is broken

Microsoft admits the WSApoll function is broken but won’t do anything about it. Unless perhaps if customers keep nagging them.

Doing portable socket programming has always meant using a bunch of #ifdefs and similar. A program needs to be built on many systems and slowly get adjusted to work really well all over. For ages, for example, Windows only supported select() and not poll() while all sensible systems[*] out there supported poll(). There are several reasons to prefer poll to select when writing code.

Then one day in 2006, Chad Charlin, a developer at Microsoft wrote the following when talking about the new WSApoll() function they introduced in Windows Vista:

Among the many improvements to the Winsock API shipping in Vista is the new WSAPoll function. Its primary purpose is to simplify the porting of a sockets application that currently uses poll() by providing an identical facility in Winsock for managing groups of sockets.

Great! Starting September 2006 curl started using it (shipped in the release curl and libcurl 7.16.0). It seemed like a huge step forward, and as Chad wrote:

If you have experience developing applications using poll(), WSAPoll will be very familiar. It is designed to behave just like poll().

Emphasis added by me. It was (of course) made to work like poll, and that’s why the API is made like that. Why would you introduce something that is almost like poll() except in minor details?

Since the new function only was available in Vista and later, it took a while until libcurl users in a more wider scale got to use it but over time Windows XP users are slowly shifting away and more and more libcurl Windows users therefore use the WSApoll based builds. Life seemed to be good. Some users noticed funny things and reported bugs we couldn’t repeat (on other platforms) but nothing really stood out and no big alarm bells went off.

During July 2012, a user of libcurl on Windows, Jan Koen Annot experienced such problems and he didn’t just sigh and move on. He rolled up his sleeves and decided to get to the bottom. Perhaps he could fix a bug or two while at it? (It seems reasonable that he thought so, I haven’t actually asked him!) What he found was however not a bug in libcurl. He found out that WSApoll did indeed not work like poll (his initial post to curl-library on the problem)! On August 1st he submitted a support issue to Microsoft about it. On August 7 we pushed the commit to curl that removed our use of WSApoll.

A few days go Jan reported back on how the case has gone, where his journey down the support alleys took him.

It turns out Microsoft already knew about this bug, which they apparently have named “Windows 8 Bugs 309411 – WSAPoll does not report failed connections”. The ticket has been resolved as Won’t Fix… (I haven’t found any public access of this.)

Jan argued for the case that since WSApoll is designed and used as a plain poll() replacement it would make sense to actually make it also work the same way:

First, it will cost much time to find out that some ‘real-life’ issue can be traced back to this WSAPoll bug. In my case we were lucky to have a regression test which triggered when we started using a slightly different cURL-library configuration on Windows. Tracing back that the test was triggered because of this bug in WSAPoll took several hours. Imagine what it would cost, if some customer in the field reported annoying delays, to trace such a vague complaint back to a bug in the WSAPoll function!

Second, even if we know beforehand about this bug in WSAPoll, then it is difficult to determine in which situations in your code you can safely use WSAPoll and in which situations you might suffer from this bug. So a better recommendation would be to simply not use WSAPoll. (…)

Third, porting code which uses the poll() function to the Windows sockets API is made more complex. The introduction of WSAPoll was meant specifically for this, so it should have compatible behavior, without a recommendation to not use it in certain circumstances.

Fourth, your recommendation will only have effect when actively promoted to developers using WSAPoll. A much better approach would be to repair the bug and publish an update. Microsoft has some nice mechanisms in place for that.

So, my conclusion is that, even if in our case the business impact may be low because we found the bug in an early stage, it is still important that Microsoft fixes the bug and publishes an update.

In my eyes all very good and sensible arguments. Perhaps not too surprisingly, these fine reasons didn’t have any particular impact on how Microsoft views this old and known bug that “has been like this forever and people are already used to it.”. It will remain closed, and Microsoft motivated this decision to Jan quite clearly and with arguments one can understand:

A discussion has been conducted around this topic and the taken decision was not to have the fix implemented due to the following reasons:

  • This issue since Vista
  • no other Microsoft customer has asked for a Hotfix since Vista timeframe
  • fixing this old issue might have some application compatibility risk (for those customers who might have somehow taken a dependency on WSAPoll failing with a timeout in the cases of connect failure as opposed to POLLERR).
  • This API will become more irrelevant as the Windows versions increase; the networking APIs will move away from classic select/poll to more advanced I/O completion mechanisms.

Argument one and two are really weak and silly. Microsoft users are very rarely complaining to Microsoft and most wouldn’t even know how to do it. Also, this problem may certainly still affect many users even if nobody has asked for a fix.

The compatibility risk is a valid point, but that’s a bit of a hard argument to have. All bugs that are about behavior will of course risk that users have adapted to the wrong behavior so a bug fix may break those. All of us who write and maintain stable APIs are used to this problem, but sticking to the buggy way of working because it has been doing this for so long is in my eyes only correct if you document this with very large letters and emphasis in all documentation: WSApoll is not fully emulating poll – beware!

The fact that they will focus more on other APIs is also understandable but besides the point. We want reliable APIs that work as documented. Applications that are Windows-only probably already very rarely use WSApoll, it will probably remain being more important for porting socket style programs to Windows.

Jan also especially highlights a funny line from this Microsoft person:

The best way to add pressure for a hotfix to be released would be to have the customers reporting it again on http://connect.microsoft.com.

Okay, so even if they have motives why they won’t fix this bug they seem to hint that if more customers nag them about it they might change their minds. Fair enough. But the users of libcurl who for five years perhaps experienced funny effects are extremely unlikely to ever report and complain to Microsoft about this. They are way more likely to complain to us, or possibly to just work around the issue somehow.

Of course, users of WSApoll can adapt to the differences and make conditional code that handles them and that could be what we end up with in the curl project in the future if we just get volunteers to adapt the code accordingly. In the mean time we’ve just reverted to the old select()-using code instead, since select() does in fact mimic the “real” select much better…

[*] = clearly Mac OS X is not a sensible system since its poll() implementation is even worse than Windows and is mostly broken or just unreliable. Subject for another blog post another time.

Update

In 2023, a user made me aware that the Microsoft documentation now says:

Note  As of Windows 10 version 2004, when a TCP socket fails to connect, (POLLHUP | POLLERR | POLLWRNORM) is indicated.

Maybe it is time to do new tests.

cURL and libcurl, Open Source, Security

SSL verification still often disabled

1 Comment

SSL padlockBack in 2002 I realized that having libcurl not do SSL server verification by default basically meant that everyone writing libcurl apps would inherit that flaw, simply because most people always just let the defaults remain unless they really have to read up on what something does and then modify them. If things work, things will just remain. So when we shipped libcurl 7.10 on the first of October that year, libcurl started verifying server certs by default.

Fast forward about ten years.

Surely SSL clients everywhere now do the right thing?

One day a couple of months ago, I was referred to this bug report for the pyssl module in Python which identifies that it doesn’t verify server certs by default! The default SSL handler in Python doesn’t verify the certificate properly. It makes all python programs that use this without special attention vulnerable for man in the middle attacks.

So let’s look at the state of another popular language: PHP. A plain standard PHP program opens a ssl:// or tls:// stream. Unless the author of said program knows and understands these things, it too runs without verifying server certs. If a program instead decides to use the PHP/CURL binding for HTTPS or similar, it will use libcurl’s default which verifies it (as I explained above).

But not everything is gloomy. Some parts of our community have decided to do the right thing:

I was told (and proven) that Ruby now does the right thing, but I don’t know how recent that is and thus how many older Ruby programs that suffer.

The same problem existed with perl’s major HTTPS using module, the LWP, for a very long time. The perl camp however already modified LWP to do verification by default with the release of libwww-perl 6.00, released in March 2011.

Side-note: in the curl project we make it easy for everyone on the Internet to use Firefox’s excellent CA cert bundle to verify server certs by providing the Firefox CA cert collection converted to PEM – the preferred format for OpenSSL, GnuTLS and others.

Conclusion:

Even today, lots and lots of applications and scripts will remain insecure – even though they probably think they’re fairly safe when they switch to a HTTPS or SSL using protocol –  and might be subject for man-in-the-middle attacks without even being able to spot it. I think it is pretty sad.

cURL and libcurl

Introducing curl_multi_wait

Facebook contributes fix to libcurl’s multi interface to overcome problem with more than 1024 file descriptors.

When we introduced the multi interface to libcurl about (what feels like) one hundred years ago, we went with simple in some ways. One way it shows: an application that wants to do many transfers in parallel asks libcurl to do it, and then it extracts the set of file descriptors (sockets!) from libcurl (using curl_multi_fdset) to wait for as plain fd_sets. fd_set is the variable type made for select(). This API choice made applications pretty much forced to use select. select() has its fair share of problems, where possibly the biggest one is that it has problems with file descriptors > 1024.

Later on we introduced an enhanced version of the multi interface for libcurl that allows an application to use whatever method it pleases. I tend to refer to that variation as the multi_socket API after its main function curl_multi_socket_action. That’s the high performance, event-driven API.

As you may be aware, event-driven code make things a bit more complicated at times so many people still prefer to use the older and simpler multi interface and thus they were forced to remain using select(). But now that era has ended. Now…

curl_multi_wait() is introduced!

This poll(3)-like function basically works as a replacement for curl_multi_fdset() + select(). Starting in libcurl 7.28.0 (strictly speaking in commit de24d7bd4c03ea3), this is a function that any application can use for this purpose, and thus avoid the problem with many file descriptors.

This new function doesn’t use any struct from the “real” poll() or associated headers to make sure that it works even for systems without a real poll() implementation. It instead uses private curl versions of both the struct and the defines used. An application can of course also tell curl_multi_wait to wait for a set of private file descriptors, just like poll() or select().

The patch set that brought this function was provided by Sara Golemon, a friend from from a related project…

cURL

cURL and libcurl

curl ‘techJobs’ SanFran

4 Comments

I got this awesome curl sighting from the US101, near SFO posted to me (click for a slightly larger version) a few days ago – showing curl on a very large billboard in an ad for Dice.

It is clearly meant to look like a unix style command line that invokes curl. The command line would only be syntactically correct if the user truly has two host names named “techJobs” and “SanFran” and curl would attempt to get their root HTTP document off them on port 80.

It gets followed by that C++/C99 comment that really is an odd added context.

To me, all the sign shows is a company that desperately tries to look techy but in trying too hard it fails really miserably. I’m really honored my work found its way to such a high profile spot though!

Follow-up, September 11th:

Much to my surprise, today I received an email from Dice responding to my “critique” above. I have to say that this response was much more than I expected and I tip my hat to them for this response:

Hi Daniel,

I’m the marketing director for Dice.com and I wanted to reach out to you to thank you for spotting our billboard error on the 101. We are deeply embarrassed by this mistake to say the least. In a classic coding scenario, our QA failed us. Unfortunately for us, we bought this spot long-term and we are trying to figure out how quickly we can replace the content.

We’ve been working this year to do a better job communicating in a more authentic way in our marketing efforts. Obviously, making a mistake like this makes it look pathetically inauthentic. At the end of the day, getting it wrong is inexcusable, particularly in such a visible way.

(photo by Stan van de Burgt, emphasis added by me)

cURL and libcurl, Network

HTTP2 Expression of Interest: curl

For the readers of my blog, this is a copy of what I posted to the httpbis mailing list on July 12th 2012.

Hi,

This is a response to the httpis call for expressions of interest

BACKGROUND

I am the project leader and maintainer of the curl project. We are the open source project that makes libcurl, the transfer library and curl the command line tool. It is among many things a client-side implementation of HTTP and HTTPS (and some dozen other application layer protocols). libcurl is very portable and there exist around 40 different bindings to libcurl for virtually all languages/enviornments imaginable. We estimate we might have upwards 500
million users or so. We’re entirely voluntary driven without any paid developers or particular company backing.

HTTP/1.1 problems I’d like to see adressed

Pipelining – I can see how something that better deals with increasing bandwidths with stagnated RTT can improve the end users’ experience. It is not easy to implement in a nice manner and provide in a library like ours.

Many connections – to avoid problems with pipelining and queueing on the connections, many connections are used and and it seems like a general waste that can be improved.

HTTP/2.0

We’ve implemented HTTP/1.1 and we intend to continue to implement any and all widely deployed transport layer protocols for data transfers that appear on the Internet. This includes HTTP/2.0 and similar related protocols.

curl has not yet implemented SPDY support, but fully intends to do so. The current plan is to provide SPDY support with the help of spindly, a separate SPDY library project that I lead.

We’ve selected to support SPDY due to the momentum it has and the multiple existing implementaions that A) have multi-company backing and B) prove it to be a truly working concept. SPDY seems to address HTTP’s pipelining and many-connections problems in a decent way that appears to work in reality too. I believe SPDY keeps enough HTTP paradigms to be easily upgraded to for most parties, and yet the ones who can’t or won’t can remain with HTTP/1.1 without too much pain. Also, while Spindly is not production-ready, it has still given me the sense that implementing a SPDY protocol engine is not rocket science and that the existing protocol specs are good.

By relying on external libs for protocol and implementation details, my hopes is that we should be able to add support for other potentially coming HTTP/2.0-ish protocols that gets deployed and used in the wild. In the curl project we’re unfortunately rarely able to be very pro-active due to the nature of our contributors, which tends to make us follow the rest and implement and go with what others have already decided to go with.

I’m not aware of any competitors to SPDY that is deployed or used to any particular and notable extent on the public internet so therefore no other “HTTP/2.0 protocol” has been considered by us. The two biggest protocol details people will keep mention that speak against SPDY is SSL and the compression requirements, yet I like both of them. I intend to continue to participate in dicussions and technical arguments on the ietf-http-wg mailing list on HTTP details for as long as I have time and energy.

HTTP AUTH

curl currently supports Basic, Digest, NTLM and Negotiate for both host and proxy.

Similar to the HTTP protocol, we intend to support any widely adopted authentication protocols. The HOBA, SCRAM and Mutual auth suggestions all seem perfectly doable and fine in my perspective.

However, if there’s no proper logout mechanism provided for HTTP auth I don’t forsee any particular desire from browser vendor or web site creators to use any of these just like they don’t use the older ones either to any significant extent. And for automatic (non-browser) uses only, I’m not sure there’s motivation enough to add new auth protocols to HTTP as at least historically we seem to rarely be able to pull anything through that isn’t pushed for by at least one of the major browsers.

The “updated HTTP auth” work should be kept outside of the HTTP/2.0 work as far as possible and similar to how RFC2617 is separate from RFC2616 it should be this time around too. The auth mechnism should not be too tightly knit to the HTTP protocol.

The day we can clense connection-oriented authentications like NTLM from the HTTP world will be a happy day, as it’s state awareness is a pain to deal with in a generic HTTP library and code.

cURL and libcurl, Development

Three static code analyzers compared

5 Comments

I’m a fan of static code analyzing. With the use of fancy scanner tools we can get detailed reports about source code mishaps and quite decently pinpoint what source code that is suspicious and may contain bugs. In the old days we used different lint versions but they were all annoying and very often just puked out far too many warnings and errors to be really useful.

Out of coincidence I ended up getting analyses done (by helpful volunteers) on the curl 7.26.0 source base with three different tools. An excellent opportunity for me to compare them all and to share the outcome and my insights of this with you, my friends. Perhaps I should add that the analyzed code base is 100% pure C89 compatible C code.

Some general observations

First out, each of the three tools detected several issues the other two didn’t spot. I would say this indicates that these tools still have a lot to improve and also that it actually is worth it to run multiple tools against the same source code for extra precaution.

Secondly, the libcurl source code has some known peculiarities that admittedly is hard for static analyzers to figure out and not alert with false positives. For example we have several macros that look like functions and on several platforms and build combinations they evaluate as nothing, which causes dead code to be generated. Another example is that we have several cases of vararg-style functions and these functions are documented to work in ways that the analyzers don’t always figure out (both clang-analyzer and Coverity show problems with these).

Thirdly, the same lesson we knew from the lint days is still true. Tools that generate too many false positives are really hard to work with since going through hundreds of issues that after analyses turn out to be nothing makes your eyes sore and your head hurt.

Fortify

The first report I got was done with Fortify. I had heard about this commercial tool before but I had never seen any results from a run but now I did. The report I got was a PDF containing 629 pages listing 1924 possible issues among the 130,000 lines of code in the project.

fortify-curl

Fortify claimed 843 possible buffer overflows. I quickly got bored trying to find even one that could lead to a problem. It turns out Fortify has a very short attention span and warns very easily on lots of places where a very quick glance by a human tells us there’s nothing to be worried about. Having hundreds and hundreds of these is really tedious and hard to work with.

If we’re kind we call them all false positives. But sometimes it is more than so, some of the alerts are plain bugs like when it warns on a buffer overflow on this line, warning that it may write beyond the buffer. All variables are ‘int’ and as we know sscanf() writes an integer to the passed in variable for each %d instance.

sscanf(ptr, "%d.%d.%d.%d", &int1, &int2, &int3, &int4);

I ended up finding and correcting two flaws detected with Fortify, both were cases where memory allocation failures weren’t handled properly.

LLVM, clang-analyzer

Given the exact same code base, clang-analyzer reported 62 potential issues. clang is an awesome and free tool. It really stands out in the way it clearly and very descriptive explains exactly how the code is executed and which code paths that are selected when it reaches the passage is thinks might be problematic.

clang-analyzer report - click for larger version

The reports from clang-analyzer are in HTML and there’s a single file for each issue and it generates a nice looking source code with embedded comments about which flow that was followed all the way down to the problem. A little snippet from a genuine issue in the curl code is shown in the screenshot I include above.

Coverity

Given the exact same code base, Coverity detected and reported 118 issues. In this case I got the report from a friend as a text file, which I’m sure is just one output version. Similar to Fortify, this is a proprietary tool.

coverity curl report - click for larger version

As you can see in the example screenshot, it does provide a rather fancy and descriptive analysis of the exact the code flow that leads to the problem it suggests exist in the code. The function referenced in this shot is a very large function with a state-machine featuring many states.

Out of the 118 issues, many of them were actually the same error but with different code paths leading to them. The report made me fix at least 4 accurate problems but they will probably silence over 20 warnings.

Coverity runs scans on open source code regularly, as I’ve mentioned before, including curl so I’ve appreciated their tool before as well.

Conclusion

From this test of a single source base, I rank them in this order:

  1. Coverity – very accurate reports and few false positives
  2. clang-analyzer – awesome reports, missed slightly too many issues and reported slightly too many false positives
  3. Fortify – the good parts drown in all those hundreds of false positives