An object deriving from a base class typically contains additional member variables that extend the base class. When by-value assigning or copying an object of the derived type to an object of the base type, those additional member variables are not copied because the base class contains insufficient space in which to store them. This action is commonly called slicing the object because the additional members are "sliced off" the resulting object.
Do not initialize an object of base class type with an object of derived class type, except through references, pointers, or pointer-like abstractions (such as std::unique_ptr, or std::shared_ptr).
Noncompliant Code Example
In this noncompliant code example, an object of the derived Manager type is passed by value to a function accepting a base Employee type. Consequently, the Manager objects are sliced, resulting in information loss and unexpected behavior when the print() function is called.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class Employee {
std::string name;
protected:
virtual void print(std::ostream &os) const {
os << "Employee: " << get_name() << std::endl;
}
public:
Employee(const std::string &name) : name(name) {}
const std::string &get_name() const { return name; }
friend std::ostream &operator<<(std::ostream &os, const Employee &e) {
e.print(os);
return os;
}
};
class Manager : public Employee {
Employee assistant;
protected:
void print(std::ostream &os) const override {
os << "Manager: " << get_name() << std::endl;
os << "Assistant: " << std::endl << "\t" << get_assistant() << std::endl;
}
public:
Manager(const std::string &name, const Employee &assistant) : Employee(name), assistant(assistant) {}
const Employee &get_assistant() const { return assistant; }
};
void f(Employee e) {
std::cout << e;
}
int main() {
Employee coder("Joe Smith");
Employee typist("Bill Jones");
Manager designer("Jane Doe", typist);
f(coder);
f(typist);
f(designer);
}
When f() is called with the designer argument, the formal parameter in f() is sliced and information is lost. When the Manager object is printed, Employee::print() is called instead of Manager::print(), resulting in the following output:
Employee: Jane Doe
Compliant Solution (Pointers)
Using the same class definitions as noncompliant code example, this compliant solution modifies the definition of f() to require raw pointers to the object, removing the slicing problem:
// ... rest of code unchanged ...
void f(const Employee *e) {
if (e) {
std::cout << *e;
}
}
int main() {
Employee coder("Joe Smith");
Employee typist("Bill Jones");
Manager designer("Jane Doe", typist);
f(&coder);
f(&typist);
f(&designer);
}
This compliant solution also complies with EXP34-C. Do not dereference null pointers in the implementation of f(). With this definition, the the program correctly outputs:
Employee: Joe Smith Employee: Bill Jones Manager: Jane Doe Assistant: Employee: Bill Jones
Compliant Solution (References)
An improved compliant solution, which does not require guarding against null pointers within f(), uses references instead of pointers:
// ... rest of code unchanged ...
void f(const Employee &e) {
std::cout << e;
}
int main() {
Employee coder("Joe Smith");
Employee typist("Bill Jones");
Manager designer("Jane Doe", typist);
f(coder);
f(typist);
f(designer);
}
Compliant Solution (Noncopyable)
Both previous compliant solutions depend on consumers of the Employee and Manager types to be declared in a compliant manner with the expected usage of the class hierarchy. This compliant solution ensures that consumers are unable to accidentally slice objects by removing the objects' ability to copy-initialize. If copy-initialization is attempted, as in the original definition of f(), the program is ill-formed and a diagnostic will be emitted. However, such a solution also restricts the Manager object from attempting to copy-initialize its Employee object, which subtly changes the semantics of the class hierarchy.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class Noncopyable {
Noncopyable(const Noncopyable &) = delete;
void operator=(const Noncopyable &) = delete;
protected:
Noncopyable() = default;
};
class Employee : Noncopyable { // definition unchanged
std::string name;
protected:
virtual void print(std::ostream &os) const {
os << "Employee: " << get_name() << std::endl;
}
public:
Employee(const std::string &name) : name(name) {}
const std::string &get_name() const { return name; }
friend std::ostream &operator<<(std::ostream &os, const Employee &e) {
e.print(os);
return os;
}
};
class Manager : public Employee {
const Employee &assistant; // Note: This definition has been modified
// remaining definition unchanged
protected:
void print(std::ostream &os) const override {
os << "Manager: " << get_name() << std::endl;
os << "Assistant: " << std::endl << "\t" << get_assistant() << std::endl;
}
public:
Manager(const std::string &name, const Employee &assistant) : Employee(name), assistant(assistant) {}
const Employee &get_assistant() const { return assistant; }
};
// If f() were declared as accepting an Employee, the program would be
// ill-formed because Employee cannot be copy-initialized.
void f(const Employee &e) {
std::cout << e;
}
int main() {
Employee coder("Joe Smith");
Employee typist("Bill Jones");
Manager designer("Jane Doe", typist);
f(coder);
f(typist);
f(designer);
}
Noncompliant Code Example
This noncompliant code example uses the same class definitions of Employee and Manager as in the previous noncompliant code example and attempts to store Employee objects in a std::vector. However, because std::vector requires a homogeneous list of elements, slicing occurs.
// In addition to the #includes from the previous example
#include <vector>
void f(const std::vector<Employee> &v) {
for (const auto &e : v) {
std::cout << e;
}
}
int main() {
Employee typist("Joe Smith");
std::vector<Employee> v{typist, Employee("Bill Jones"), Manager("Jane Doe", typist)};
f(v);
}
Compliant Solution
This compliant solution uses a vector of std::unique_ptr objects, which eliminates the slicing problem:
// In addition to the #includes from the previous example
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
void f(const std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Employee>> &v) {
for (const auto &e : v) {
std::cout << *e;
}
}
int main() {
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Employee>> v;
v.emplace_back(new Employee("Joe Smith"));
v.emplace_back(new Employee("Bill Jones"));
v.emplace_back(new Manager("Jane Doe", *v.front()));
f(v);
}
Risk Assessment
Slicing results in information loss, which could lead to abnormal program execution or denial-of-service attacks.
Rule | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OOP51-CPP | Low | Probable | Medium | P4 | L3 |
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parasoft C/C++test | 9.5 | OOP-02, JSF-117_a | |
| 4.4 | 3072, 3073 |
Related Vulnerabilities
Search for other vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.
Related Guidelines
| SEI CERT C++ Coding Standard | ERR61-CPP. Catch exceptions by lvalue reference |
| SEI CERT C Coding Standard |
Bibliography
| [Dewhurst 02] | Gotcha #38, "Slicing" |
| [ISO/IEC 14882-2014] | Subclause 12.8, "Copying and Moving Class Objects" |
| [Sutter 00] | Item 40, "Object Lifetimes—Part I" |
