The presence of unused values may indicate significant logic errors. To prevent such errors, unused values should be identified and removed from code.
This recommendation is a specific case of MSC12-C. Detect and remove code that has no effect or is never executed.
Noncompliant Code Example
In this example, p2
is assigned the value returned by bar()
, but that value is never used. Note this example assumes that foo()
and bar()
return valid pointers (see DCL30-C. Declare objects with appropriate storage durations).
int *p1; int *p2; p1 = foo(); p2 = bar(); if (baz()) { return p1; } else { p2 = p1; } return p2;
Compliant Solution
This example can be corrected in many different ways, depending on the intent of the programmer. In this compliant solution, p2
is found to be extraneous. The calls to bar()
and baz()
can be removed if they do not produce any side effects.
int *p1 = foo(); /* Removable if bar() does not produce any side effects */ (void)bar(); /* Removable if baz() does not produce any side effects */ (void)baz(); return p1;
Exceptions
MSC13-EX1: Initializing a variable with a default value, such as 0, which gets subsequently overwritten may be inefficient, but is less of a problem than reading an uninitialized value, as per EXP33-C. Do not read uninitialized memory.
Risk Assessment
Unused values may indicate significant logic errors.
Recommendation | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
MSC13-C | Low | Unlikely | Medium | P2 | L3 |
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Astrée | 24.04 | Supported, but no explicit checker | |
CodeSonar | 8.1p0 | LANG.STRUCT.UUVAL | Unused value |
2017.07 | UNUSED_VALUE | Finds variables that are assigned pointer values returned from a function call but never used | |
Helix QAC | 2024.3 | C1500, C1502, C3203, C3205, C3206, C3207, C3229 DF2980, DF2981, DF2982, DF2983, DF2984, DF2985, DF2986 | |
Klocwork | 2024.3 | LV_UNUSED.GEN | |
LDRA tool suite | 9.7.1 | 1 D, 8 D, 105 D, 94 D, 15 D | Fully implemented |
Parasoft C/C++test | 2023.1 | CERT_C-MSC13-a | Avoid unnecessary local variables |
PC-lint Plus | 1.4 | 438, 505, 529, 715, 838 | Partially supported |
Polyspace Bug Finder | R2024a | Checks for:
Rec. partially covered. | |
PVS-Studio | 7.33 | V519, V596, V603, V714, V744, V751, V763, V1001, V5003 | |
SonarQube C/C++ Plugin | 3.11 | S1854 |
Related Vulnerabilities
Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.
Related Guidelines
SEI CERT C++ Coding Standard | VOID MSC13-CPP. Detect and remove unused values |
ISO/IEC TR 24772 | Likely Incorrect Expressions [KOA] Dead and Deactivated Code [XYQ] Unused Variable [XYR] |
5 Comments
Hal Burch
I'm uncomfortable with the examples, as the replacement is only possible if bar() has no side-effects. A few options:
bar()
if it has no side-effectsbar()
call on its own line, with a comment saying it's removable if there's no side-effectsbar()
with inline code, such asp2 = &p1[3];
, where its clear there are no side-effects.Jeffrey Gennari
Agreed and fixed.
Stephen Friedl
Most compliers will issue warnings when variables are unused, and the compiler should always be asked to issue these warnings.
They are not always easy to make go away when in
#ifdef
hell, but the approach I've taken in the past is to either delete the variable (if it's really unused), or to create some macros that tag the variable with the proper intent.Now one can do:
and not only shut up the compiler warnings, but tell the user "We really know this parameter is not used"
Other examples could be - a contrived one:
This allows max documentation of programmer intent, which conveys a valuable security message.
The only reason for
UNUSED_PARAMETER()
andUNUSED_VARIABLE()
is documentation; they do the same thing.Alex Volkovitsky
What would be a good algorithm for ROSE to try and detect this? I thought at first that looking for two consecutive writes to a variable without an intervening read should set off a flag, but looking trough our code there seem to be plenty of cases in which that is not a violation...
Robert Seacord
I think that the title and content of this recommendation should be modified to explicitly mention unreferenced formal parameters as well.