I found out (thanks to a StackOverflow comment) a security flaw in my code:
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Item>> items;
template<class... TS> Item& create(TS&&... mArgs)
{
auto item(new Item(std::forward<TS>(mArgs)...);
items.emplace_back(item); // Possible exception and memory leak
return *item;
}
Basically, allocating the Item
with a raw new
may leak memory if the emplace_back
throws.
The solution is never using a raw new
, but using a std::unique_ptr
right in the method body.
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Item>> items;
template<class... TS> Item& create(TS&&... mArgs)
{
auto item(std::make_unique<Item>(std::forward<TS>(mArgs)...);
items.emplace_back(std::move(item));
return *item; // `item` was moved, this is invalid!
}
As you can see, returning item
is invalid, as I had to move item
using std::move
to emplace it into the items
container.
I can't think of a solution that requires storing item
's address in an additional variable. The original (buggy) solution is however very concise and easy to read.
Is there a more elegant way of returning an std::unique_ptr
that was moved for emplacement in a container?
You may write:
template<class... TS>
Item& create(TS&&... mArgs)
{
items.emplace_back(std::make_unique<Item>(std::forward<TS>(mArgs)...));
return *items.back();
}