It is important that resources are reclaimed Reclaiming resources when exceptions are thrown is important. An exception being thrown may result in cleanup code being bypassed , or an object being left in a partially - initialized state. It is preferable if resources are reclaimed automatically when objects go out of scope by Such a partially initialized object would violate basic exception safety, as described in ERR56-CPP. Guarantee exception safety. It is preferable that resources be reclaimed automatically, using the RAII design pattern [Stroustrup 2001], when objects go out of scope. This saves you from having to worry about technique avoids the need to write complex cleanup code when allocating resources.
However, constructors do not offer the same protection. Since Because a constructor is involved in allocating resources, it does not automatically free any resources it allocates if it terminates prematurely. The C++ Standard, [except.ctor], paragraph 2 states [ISO/IEC 14882-2014], states the following:
An object of any storage duration whose initialization or destruction is terminated by an exception will have destructors executed for all of its fully constructed subobjects (excluding the variant members of a union-like class), that is, for subobjects for which the principal constructor (12.6.2) has completed execution and the destructor has not yet begun execution. Similarly, if the non-delegating constructor for an object has completed execution and a delegating constructor for that object exits with an exception, the object’s destructor will be invoked. If the object was allocated in a new-expression, the matching deallocation function (3.7.4.2, 5.3.4, 12.5), if any, is called to free the storage occupied by the object.
It is generally recommended that constructors that cannot complete their job should throw exceptions , rather than exit normally , leaving and leave their object in a 'half-baked' an incomplete state [Cline 2009].
Resources must not be leaked as a result of throwing an exception, including during the construction of an object.
This rule is a subset of MEM51-CPP. Properly deallocate dynamically allocated resources, as all failures to deallocate resources violate that rule.
Noncompliant Code Example
In this noncompliant code example, pst
is not properly released when processItem
process_item
throws an exception, causing a resource leak:.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
#include <new> struct SomeType { SomeType() noexcept; // Performs nontrivial initialization. ~SomeType(); // Performs nontrivial finalization. void processItemprocess_item() noexcept(false); }; void f() { SomeType *pst = new (std::nothrow) SomeType(); if (!pst) { // Handle error return; } try { pst->processItem>process_item(); } catch (...) { // HandleProcess error, but do not recover from it; rethrow. throw; } delete pst; } |
Compliant Solution (delete
)
In this compliant solution, the exception handler frees pst
by calling delete
:.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
#include <new> struct SomeType { SomeType() noexcept; // Performs nontrivial initialization. void processItem~SomeType(); // Performs nontrivial finalization. void process_item() noexcept(false); }; void f() { SomeType *pst = new (std::nothrow) SomeType(); if (!pst) { // Handle error return; } try { pst->processItem>process_item(); } catch (...) { // HandleProcess error, but do not recover from it; rethrow. delete pst; throw; } delete pst; } |
This compliant solution complies with VOID MEM31-CPP. Free dynamically allocated memory exactly once, however, while handling resource cleanup in catch clauses does work, it can have several While this compliant solution properly releases its resources using catch
clauses, this approach can have some disadvantages:
- Each distinct cleanup requires its own
try
& andcatch
blocks. - The cleanup operation must not throw any exceptions.
Compliant Solution (RAII Design Pattern)
A better approach would be is to employ RAII. This pattern forces every object to ' clean up after itself ' in the face of abnormal behavior, preventing the programmer from having to do so. This approach additionally benefits by not requiring Another benefit of this approach is that it does not require statements to handle resource allocation errors, in conformance with MEM32MEM52-CPP. Detect and handle memory allocation errors.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
struct SomeType { SomeType() noexcept; // Performs nontrivial initialization. ~SomeType(); // Performs nontrivial finalization. void processItemprocess_item() noexcept(false); }; void f() { SomeType st; try { st.processItemprocess_item(); } catch (...) { // HandleProcess error, but do not recover from it; rethrow. throw; } // After re-throwing the exception, the destructor is run for st. } // If f() exits without throwing an exception, the destructor is run for st. |
Noncompliant Code Example
In this noncompliant code example, the C::C()
constructor might fail to allocate memory for a
, might fail to allocate memory for b
, or might throw an exception in the init()
method. If init()
throws an exception, then neither a
nor b
will be released. Likewise, if the allocation for b
fails, then a
will not be released.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
#include <new>
struct A {/* ... */};
struct B {/* ... */};
class C {
A *a;
B *b;
protected:
void init() noexcept(false);
public:
C() : a(new A()), b(new B()) {
init();
}
};
|
Compliant Solution (try/catch
)
This compliant solution mitigates the potential failures by releasing a
and b
if an exception is thrown during their allocation or during init()
:.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
#include <new> struct A {/* ... */}; struct B {/* ... */}; class C { A *a; B *b; protected: void init() noexcept(false); public: C() : a(nullptr), b(nullptr) { try { a = new A(); b = new B(); init(); } catch (...) { delete a; delete b; throw; } } }; |
Compliant Solution (std::unique_ptr)
This compliant solution utilizies uses std::unique_ptr
to create objects that clean up after themselves should anything go wrong in the C::C()
constructor. See MEM00-CPP. Don't use auto_ptr where copy semantics might be expected for more information on The std::unique_ptr
applies the principles of RAII to pointers.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
#include <memory> struct A {/* ... */}; struct B {/* ... */}; class C { std::unique_ptr<A> a; std::unique_ptr<B> b; protected: void init() noexcept(false); public: C() : a(new A()), b(new B()) { init(); } }; |
Risk Assessment
Memory and other resource leaks will eventually cause a program to crash. If an attacker can provoke repeated resource leaks by forcing an exception to be thrown through the submission of suitably crafted data, then the attacker can mount a denial-of-service attack.
Rule | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|
ERR57-CPP | Low | Probable | High | P2 | L3 |
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description |
---|
CodeSonar |
| ALLOC.LEAK | Leak | ||||||
Helix QAC |
| DF4756, DF4757, DF4758 | |||||||
Klocwork |
| CL.MLK | |||||||
LDRA tool suite |
| 50 D | Partially implemented | ||||||
Parasoft C/C++test |
| CERT_CPP-ERR57-a | Ensure resources are freed | ||||||
Polyspace Bug Finder |
| CERT C++: ERR57-CPP | Checks for:
|
Related Vulnerabilities
Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.
Related Guidelines
Bibliography
Bibliography
[Cline 2009] | Question 17.2, |
I'm still not convinced: |
A 4-line code snippet shows that return-codes aren't any worse than exceptions; | |
[ISO/IEC 14882-2014] | Subclause 15.2, "Constructors and Destructors" |
[Meyers 1996] | Item 9, "Use Destructors to Prevent Resource Leaks" |
[Stroustrup 2001] | "Exception-Safe Implementation Techniques" |
...