Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

In C89 (and historical K&R implementations), the meaning of the remainder operator for negative operands was implementation-defined. This behavior was changed in C99, and the change remains in C11.

Because not all C compilers are strictly C-conforming, programmers cannot rely on the behavior of the % operator if they need to run on a wide range of platforms with many different compilers.

The C Standard, subclause 6.5.5 [ISO/IEC 9899:2011], states:

The result of the / operator is the quotient from the division of the first operand by the second; the result of the % operator is the remainder. In both operations, if the value of the second operand is zero, the behavior is undefined.


When integers are divided, the result of the / operator is the algebraic quotient with any fractional part discarded. If the quotient a/b is representable, the expression (a/b)*b + a%b shall equal a.

Discarding the fractional part of the remainder is often called truncation toward zero.

The C definition of the % operator implies the following behavior:

The result has the same sign as the dividend (the first operand in the expression).

Noncompliant Code Example

In this noncompliant code example, the insert() function adds values to a buffer in a modulo fashion, that is, by inserting values at the beginning of the buffer once the end is reached. However, both size and index are declared as int and consequently are not guaranteed to be positive. Depending on the implementation and on the sign of size and index, the result of (index + 1) % size may be negative, resulting in a write outside the bounds of the list array.

This code also violates ERR02-C. Avoid in-band error indicators.

Noncompliant Code Example

Taking the absolute value of the modulo operation returns a positive value:

However, this noncompliant code example violates INT01-C. Use rsize_t or size_t for all integer values representing the size of an object. There is also a possibility that (index + 1) could result in a signed integer overflow in violation of INT32-C. Ensure that operations on signed integers do not result in overflow.

Compliant Solution (Unsigned Types)

The most appropriate solution in this case is to use unsigned types to eliminate any possible implementation-defined behavior, as in this compliant solution. For compliance with ERR02-C. Avoid in-band error indicators, this solution fills a result argument with the mathematical result and returns nonzero only if the operation succeeds.

Risk Assessment

Incorrectly assuming that the result of the remainder operator for signed operands will always be positive can lead to an out-of-bounds memory accessor other flawed logic.




Remediation Cost









Automated Detection








Could detect the specific noncompliant code example. It could identify when the result of a % operation might be negative and flag usage of that result in an array index. It could conceivably flag usage of any such result without first checking that the result is positive, but it would likely introduce many false positives

Fortify SCA



Can detect violations of this recommendation with the CERT C Rule Pack

LDRA tool suite


584 S

Fully implemented

Parasoft C/C++test9.5BD-PB-ARRAYPartially implemented
Polyspace Bug FinderR2016aTainted modulo operand

Remainder % operands are from an unsecure source

PRQA QA-C8.23103Fully implemented

Related Vulnerabilities

Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.

Related Guidelines




  1. All of these implementions appear to implement the C99 behavior:

    Implementation Details

    Microsoft Visual Studio

    In division where either operand is negative, the direction of truncation is toward 0.

    If either operation is negative in division with the remainder operator, the result has the same sign as the dividend (the first operand in the expression). For example:

    In each case, 50 and 2 have the same sign.

    Sun Studio 10 C 5.7 Compiler

    The result is the same sign as the dividend; thus, the remainder of -23/4 is -3.


    GCC always follows the C99 requirement that the result of division is truncated towards zero.

  2. C99 imposed a Fortran-compatible requirement in an attempt to attract more Fortran programmers and to aid in converting Fortran code to C.  Frankly, I think that if it was going to be nailed down, it should have been to produce a strict step behavior (see Knuth's discussion of "mod" in _The Art of Computer Programming), which has better mathematical properties.  It is almost never the case that a calculation should be using minus % X or X % minus, and when it should, truncating toward zero is probably the wrong behavior.

  3. This recommendation is labeled "unenforceable" which is counter-indicated by the automated detection section which states:

    Fortify SCA Version 5.0 with the CERT C Rule Pack can detect violations of this recommendation.

    One way to analyze this would be to determine if the signed result of a % expression was used as an array index or other manner requiring a non-negative value.

    1. Adjusted the tags accordingly. I don't think we can catch all instances of a negative mod result, but we can certainly catch the one example described here.

  4. In the compliant code section, the definition of "a true (never negative) modulo operation" looks a bit weird to me. eg. imod(-5, 3) returns 1, which sort of contradicts my intuition. (which might not be the point of this recommendation though...)

    1. Good point. Negative modulo has two 'intuitive' answers: -5%3=-2 vs -5%3=1. So it's fallacious to speak of a 'true' mod operator. Adjusted paragraph accordingly.

  5. The compliant solution produces signed overflow due to integer promotion. You guys are dumb.

    1. I appreciate the comment, but not the insults. Please try to behave in a professional manner in keeping with the terms and conditions on this website.

      The compliant solution has no signed overflow because it uses unsigned types.

      Both noncompliant solutions have the potential for signed integer overflow when adding (index + 1). I'm going to clarify that this is also a problem.

      I don't see any possibility of overflow from the expression abs((index + 1) % size) because the modulo operation cannot return INT_MIN.

      Integer promotions are not a factor in this example because it only applies to the small integer types char and short.

      1. Integer promotion applies to integer types whose integer conversion rank is less than or equal to an int and

        unsigned int. The compliant solution wrongly assumes that size_t has a rank greater than an int.

        The modulo is irrelevant. It cannot undo signed overflow. Have you guys even read a third of the standard?

        I'm at like 20 percent of the draft - so yes - you guys are dumb.

        1. If sizeof(size_t) == sizeof(int), then the expression (index + 1) converts the +1 to unsigned int. Which has no effect on the calculation, as the bits are preserved. Index may wrap, There might also be a conversion of index to an int when it is returned, but again, the bits are preserved

          I don't know of any platform where sizeof(size_t) < sizeof(int), but it is permitted by C99. If we assume all sizes are powers of 2, then sizeof(size_t) <= sizeof(int) / 2. Then a promotion occurs on (index + 1), where index gets promoted to (signed) int. No overflow is possible, since index <= SIZE_MAX < INT_MAX. And a promotion occurs when returning index, again with all bits preserved.

          The only other interesting scenario would be if SIZE_MAX == INT_MAX. IOW size_t has the same number of value bits as (signed) int, but int has a signed bit, whereas size_t does not. If index == SIZE_MAX, then index+1 might be expected to wrap, but would not wrap due to the promotion to int. Consequently the modulo produces an unexpected result (then again, it depends on what you are expecting, I guess.) Technically this is not overflow or wrapping, but it is weird, and I know of no platforms with this cockeyed configuration...do you?

          An easy fix would be to ensure that index != SIZE_MAX. Which is a good idea if you don't want wrapping on any platform.

          There is a problem with this compliant example, but it has nothing to do with math. Returning either index, which represents an unsigned size, or returning -1 represents an in-bound error condition, which is forbidden by ERR02-C. Avoid in-band error indicators.

          1. Made both of the fixes I suggested.

            1. The fix could be made by simply adding a unsigned integer one.

              So the expression would be:  *index = (index + 1U) % size;*

              Assuming those weird conditions, you described, index will get promoted, using integer promotions, to unsigned int, and will wrap normally if SIZE_MAX == UINT_MAX.


  6. I don't see this mapping to cwe 129?