Repository navigation
r.to.rast3elev: Check return-value for 'scanf'-like functions - #7660
Merged
Merged
Conversation
… check for a 'scanf'-like function Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <62310815+github-advanced-security[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
github-actions
Bot
added
raster
Member
Author
|
I have a follow-up next with (most) of the remaining instances of this. |
echoix
added a commit
to echoix-org/grass
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2026
…7660) Potential fix for code scanning alert no. 239: Incorrect return-value check for a 'scanf'-like function Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <62310815+github-advanced-security[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
echoix
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 13, 2026
…e function" (#7673) Follow-up from #7660 This PR applies the same logic as the other PR, where how sscanf can also return EOF "if input failure occurs before the first receiving argument was assigned". (See https://en.cppreference.com/c/io/fscanf). Here, the little touch that is different for `raster/r.out.vtk/writeascii.c` and `raster3d/r3.out.vtk/writeVTKData.c`, is that I assume that if there's the `EOF` case, or any invalid case for the `null_value`, we would still want the null value to be 0. I think that's the design intention behind the code. This was assisted by AI (Copilot-generated fix suggestions for code scanning alerts), but we can reason through it and I applied some myself in order to batch them in one single PR. This should fix: - https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/525 - https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/526 - https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/527 - https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/528 - https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/531 - https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/532 - https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/533 * Potential fix for code scanning alert no. 525: Incorrect return-value check for a 'scanf'-like function Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <62310815+github-advanced-security[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> * Potential fix for code scanning alert no. 528: Incorrect return-value check for a 'scanf'-like function Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <62310815+github-advanced-security[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> * Update writeascii.c * r3.out.vtk: Fix "Incorrect return-value check for a 'scanf'-like function" for null value * r.watershed: Fix "Incorrect return-value check for a 'scanf'-like function" for disturbed_land default value Adresses https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/532 --------- Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <62310815+github-advanced-security[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
echoix
added a commit
to wenzeslaus/grass
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 14, 2026
…e function" (OSGeo#7673) Follow-up from OSGeo#7660 This PR applies the same logic as the other PR, where how sscanf can also return EOF "if input failure occurs before the first receiving argument was assigned". (See https://en.cppreference.com/c/io/fscanf). Here, the little touch that is different for `raster/r.out.vtk/writeascii.c` and `raster3d/r3.out.vtk/writeVTKData.c`, is that I assume that if there's the `EOF` case, or any invalid case for the `null_value`, we would still want the null value to be 0. I think that's the design intention behind the code. This was assisted by AI (Copilot-generated fix suggestions for code scanning alerts), but we can reason through it and I applied some myself in order to batch them in one single PR. This should fix: - https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/525 - https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/526 - https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/527 - https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/528 - https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/531 - https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/532 - https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/533 * Potential fix for code scanning alert no. 525: Incorrect return-value check for a 'scanf'-like function Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <62310815+github-advanced-security[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> * Potential fix for code scanning alert no. 528: Incorrect return-value check for a 'scanf'-like function Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <62310815+github-advanced-security[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> * Update writeascii.c * r3.out.vtk: Fix "Incorrect return-value check for a 'scanf'-like function" for null value * r.watershed: Fix "Incorrect return-value check for a 'scanf'-like function" for disturbed_land default value Adresses https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/532 --------- Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <62310815+github-advanced-security[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
From me:
Resolves two CodeQL warning.
In https://en.cppreference.com/c/io/fscanf, it shows how the return value of sscanf is the number of successfully assigned arguments, with can also be zero or EOF.
The change is to explicitly check for the value 1.
From the auto fix (adapted):
Potential fix for https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/529
And https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/security/code-scanning/530
The correct fix is to validate
sscanfreturn values against the exact expected number of matched items, not just truthiness.In
raster/r.to.rast3elev/main.c, update both numeric parsing checks:if (sscanf(param.upper->answer, "%lf", &db.upper))if (sscanf(param.lower->answer, "%lf", &db.lower))Change each condition to
== 1, since each call expects exactly one%lfconversion. This preserves existing behavior for valid input while correctly rejecting parse failures and any non-success return values (includingEOF).No new methods, imports, or dependencies are needed.