You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 78 Next »

The C++ Standard, [expr.delete], paragraph 3 [ISO/IEC 14882-2014 ], states the following:

In the first alternative (delete object), if the static type of the object to be deleted is different from its dynamic type, the static type shall be a base class of the dynamic type of the object to be deleted and the static type shall have a virtual destructor or the behavior is undefined. In the second alternative (delete array) if the dynamic type of the object to be deleted differs from its static type, the behavior is undefined.

Do not delete an object of derived class type through a pointer to its base class type that has a non-virtual destructor. Instead, the base class should be defined with a virtual destructor. Deleting an object through a pointer to a type without a virtual destructor results in undefined behavior.

Noncompliant Code Example

In this noncompliant example, b is a polymorphic pointer type whose static type is Base * and whose dynamic type is Derived *. When b is deleted, it results in undefined behavior because Base does not have a virtual destructor. The C++ Standard, [class.dtor], paragraph 4 [ISO/IEC 14882-2014 ], states the following:

If a class has no user-declared destructor, a destructor is implicitly declared as defaulted. An implicitly declared destructor is an inline public member of its class.

The implicitly declared destructor is not declared as virtual even in the presence of other virtual functions.

struct Base {
  virtual void f();
};
 
struct Derived : Base {};
 
void f() {
  Base *b = new Derived();
  // ...
  delete b;
}

Noncompliant Code Example

In this noncompliant example, the explicit pointer operations have been replaced with a smart pointer object, demonstrating that smart pointers suffer from the same problem as other pointers. Because the default deleter for std::unique_ptr calls delete on the internal pointer value, the resulting behavior is identical to the previous noncompliant example.

#include <memory>
 
struct Base {
  virtual void f();
};
 
struct Derived : Base {};
 
void f() {
  std::unique_ptr<Base> b = std::make_unique<Derived()>();
}

Compliant Solution

In this compliant solution, the destructor for Base has an explicitly declared virtual destructor, ensuring that the polymorphic delete operation results in well-defined behavior.

struct Base {
  virtual ~Base() = default;
  virtual void f();
};

struct Derived : Base {};

void f() {
  Base *b = new Derived();
  // ...
  delete b;
}

Risk Assessment

Attempting to destruct a polymorphic object that does not have a virtual destructor declared results in undefined behavior. In practice, potential consequences include abnormal program termination and memory leaks.

Rule

Severity

Likelihood

Remediation Cost

Priority

Level

OOP52-CPP

Low

Likely

Low

P9

L2

Automated Detection

Tool

Version

Checker

Description

PRQA QA-C++

4.4

2116, 3403

 
Klocwork2024.1CL.MLK.VIRTUAL 
Clang3.9-Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor 
LDRA tool suite
9.7.1

 

303 S

Partially implemented

Parasoft C/C++test9.5OOP-22 
SonarQube C/C++ Plugin4.10S1235 

Related Vulnerabilities

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

Related Guidelines

Bibliography

[ISO/IEC 14882-2014]

Subclause 5.3.5, "Delete"
Subclause 12.4, "Destructors" 

[Stroustrup 06]"Why Are Destructors Not Virtual by Default?"

 


  • No labels