101

Can anybody tell me how to remove all CA2202 warnings from the following code?

public static byte[] Encrypt(string data, byte[] key, byte[] iv)
{
    using(MemoryStream memoryStream = new MemoryStream())
    {
        using (DESCryptoServiceProvider cryptograph = new DESCryptoServiceProvider())
        {
            using (CryptoStream cryptoStream = new CryptoStream(memoryStream, cryptograph.CreateEncryptor(key, iv), CryptoStreamMode.Write))
            {
                using(StreamWriter streamWriter = new StreamWriter(cryptoStream))
                {
                    streamWriter.Write(data);
                }
            }
        }
        return memoryStream.ToArray();
    }
}

Warning 7 CA2202 : Microsoft.Usage : Object 'cryptoStream' can be disposed more than once in method 'CryptoServices.Encrypt(string, byte[], byte[])'. To avoid generating a System.ObjectDisposedException you should not call Dispose more than one time on an object.: Lines: 34

Warning 8 CA2202 : Microsoft.Usage : Object 'memoryStream' can be disposed more than once in method 'CryptoServices.Encrypt(string, byte[], byte[])'. To avoid generating a System.ObjectDisposedException you should not call Dispose more than one time on an object.: Lines: 34, 37

You need Visual Studio Code Analysis to see these warnings (these are not c# compiler warnings).

Ben Smith
  • 19,589
  • 6
  • 65
  • 93
testalino
  • 5,474
  • 6
  • 36
  • 48
  • 1
    This code doesn't generate these warnings. – Julien Hoarau Sep 30 '10 at 14:46
  • 1
    I get 0 warnings for this (Warn level 4, VS2010). And for someone googling problems in this area, pleas add the text of the warnings as well. – H H Sep 30 '10 at 14:47
  • 29
    **CAxxxx** warnings are generated by **Code Analysis** and FxCop. – dtb Sep 30 '10 at 14:48
  • This warning does not apply to the shown code -- warnings can be suppressed for exactly this scenario. Once you have reviewed your code and agree with that assessment, place this above your method: "`[SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2202:Do not dispose objects multiple times", Justification="BrainSlugs83 said so.")]`" -- make sure you have a "`using System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis;`" statement in your usings block. – BrainSlugs83 Nov 25 '13 at 05:32
  • 2
    Have a look at: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182334.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396 – Adil Mammadov Sep 04 '15 at 10:09

12 Answers12

144

You should suppress the warnings in this case. Code that deals with disposables should be consistent, and you shouldn't have to care that other classes take ownership of the disposables you created and also call Dispose on them.

[SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2202:Do not dispose objects multiple times")]
public static byte[] Encrypt(string data, byte[] key, byte[] iv) {
  using (var memoryStream = new MemoryStream()) {
    using (var cryptograph = new DESCryptoServiceProvider())
    using (var cryptoStream = new CryptoStream(memoryStream, cryptograph.CreateEncryptor(key, iv), CryptoStreamMode.Write))
    using (var streamWriter = new StreamWriter(cryptoStream)) {
      streamWriter.Write(data);
    }
    return memoryStream.ToArray();
  }
}

UPDATE: In the IDisposable.Dispose documentation you can read this:

If an object's Dispose method is called more than once, the object must ignore all calls after the first one. The object must not throw an exception if its Dispose method is called multiple times.

It can be argued that this rule exists so that developers can employ the using statement sanely in a cascade of disposables, like I've shown above (or maybe this is just a nice side-effect). By the same token, then, CA2202 serves no useful purpose, and it should be suppressed project-wise. The real culprit would be a faulty implementation of Dispose, and CA1065 should take care of that (if it's under your responsibility).

IAmJersh
  • 742
  • 8
  • 25
Jordão
  • 55,340
  • 13
  • 112
  • 144
  • 16
    In my opinion this is a bug in fxcop, this rule is simply wrong. The dispose method should never throw an ObjectDisposedException and if it does then you should deal with it at that time by filing a bug on the author of the code that implements dispose this way. – justin.m.chase Feb 01 '14 at 22:22
  • 15
    I agree with @HansPassant in the other thread: the tool is doing its job and warning you of an unexpected implementation detail of the classes. Personally, I think the real problem is the design of the APIs themselves. Having the nested classes default to presuming that it's OK to take ownership of another object created elsewhere seems highly questionable. I can see where that could be useful if the resulting object was going to be returned, but defaulting to that assumption seems counter-intuitive, as well as violating normal IDisposable patterns. – BTJ Feb 04 '14 at 22:00
  • 8
    But msdn does not recomend to Supress this type of message. Have a look at: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182334.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396 – Adil Mammadov Sep 04 '15 at 10:10
  • 2
    Thanks for the link @AdilMammadov, useful info but microsoft are not always right about these things. – Tim Abell Jan 11 '17 at 16:29
41

Well, it is accurate, the Dispose() method on these streams will be called more than once. The StreamReader class will take 'ownership' of the cryptoStream so disposing streamWriter will also dispose cryptoStream. Similarly, the CryptoStream class takes over responsibility for the memoryStream.

These are not exactly real bugs, these .NET classes are resilient to multiple Dispose() calls. But if you want to get rid of the warning then you should drop the using statement for these objects. And pain yourself a bit when reasoning what will happen if the code throws an exception. Or shut-up the warning with an attribute. Or just ignore the warning since it is silly.

Hans Passant
  • 922,412
  • 146
  • 1,693
  • 2,536
  • 11
    Having to have special knowledge about the internal behavior of classes (like a disposable taking ownership of another one) is too much to ask if one wants to design a reusable API. So I think that the `using` statements should stay. These warnings are really silly. – Jordão Sep 30 '10 at 15:16
  • 4
    @Jordão - isn't that what to tool is for? To warn you about internal behavior you might not have known about? – Hans Passant Sep 30 '10 at 15:27
  • Maybe you're right. But the problem is that internal behavior can _change_ in the future. You shouldn't have to rely on it to use the API. So to me, just suppress the warnings. – Jordão Sep 30 '10 at 15:51
  • 1
    Nah, it is not internal behavior, it is documented behavior. And it is logical behavior. It will never change. – Hans Passant Sep 30 '10 at 15:56
  • 8
    I agree. But, I still wouldn't drop the `using` statements. It just feels wrong to rely on another object to dispose of an object that I created. For this code, it's OK, but there're many implementations of `Stream` and `TextWriter` out there (not only on the BCL). The code to use them all should be consistent. – Jordão Sep 30 '10 at 16:27
  • Great discussion. Torn between opinion on good practice & knowing the internals vs. the tool telling you about internals. Life's short: I'm removing the extra `using` and commenting, linking to this page. – Luke Puplett Jun 27 '13 at 17:04
  • 3
    Yes, agree with Jordão. If you really want the programmer is aware of the internal behavior of the api, then speak out by naming your function as DoSomethingAndDisposeStream(Stream stream, OtherData data). – ZZZ Jul 25 '13 at 03:58
  • 5
    @HansPassant Can you point out where it is documented that `XmlDocument.Save()` method will call `Dispose` on the supplied parameter? i don't see it in the documentation of [`Save(XmlWriter)`](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z2w98a50.aspx) (where i'm experiencing the FxCop bug), or in the [`Save()`](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/System.Xml.XmlDocument.Save.aspx) method itself, or in the documentation of [`XmlDocument`](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/System.Xml.XmlDocument.aspx) itself. – Ian Boyd Sep 27 '13 at 21:24
9

When a StreamWriter is disposed, it will automatically dispose the wrapped Stream (here: the CryptoStream). CryptoStream also automatically disposes the wrapped Stream (here: the MemoryStream).

So your MemoryStream is disposed both by the CryptoStream and the using statement. And your CryptoStream is disposed by the StreamWriter and the outer using statement.


After some experimentation, it seems to be impossible to get rid of warnings completely. Theorectically, the MemoryStream needs to be disposed, but then you theoretically couldn't access its ToArray method anymore. Practically, a MemoryStream does not need to be disposed, so I'd go with this solution and suppress the CA2000 warning.

var memoryStream = new MemoryStream();

using (var cryptograph = new DESCryptoServiceProvider())
using (var writer = new StreamWriter(new CryptoStream(memoryStream, ...)))
{
    writer.Write(data);
}

return memoryStream.ToArray();
dtb
  • 213,145
  • 36
  • 401
  • 431
  • "then you theoretically couldn't access its ToArray method anymore" So move the `return` line before the closing brace of the `using` scope. – Ben Voigt Aug 25 '20 at 18:26
9

I would do this using #pragma warning disable.

The .NET Framework Guidelines recommend to implement IDisposable.Dispose in such a way that it can be called multiple times. From the MSDN description of IDisposable.Dispose:

The object must not throw an exception if its Dispose method is called multiple times

Therefore the warning seems to be almost meaningless:

To avoid generating a System.ObjectDisposedException you should not call Dispose more than one time on an object

I guess it could be argued that the warning may be helpful if you're using a badly-implemented IDisposable object that does not follow the standard implementation guidelines. But when using classes from the .NET Framework like you are doing, I'd say it's safe to suppress the warning using a #pragma. And IMHO this is preferable to going through hoops as suggested in the MSDN documentation for this warning.

Joe
  • 122,218
  • 32
  • 205
  • 338
  • 4
    CA2202 is a Code Analysis warning and not a compiler warning. `#pragma warning disable` can only be used to suppress compiler warnings. To suppress a Code Analysis warning you need to use an attribute. – Martin Liversage Jun 22 '15 at 10:11
2

I was faced with similar issues in my code.

Looks like the whole CA2202 thing is triggered because MemoryStream can be disposed if exception occurs in constructor (CA2000).

This could be resolved like this:

 1 public static byte[] Encrypt(string data, byte[] key, byte[] iv)
 2 {
 3    MemoryStream memoryStream = GetMemoryStream();
 4    using (DESCryptoServiceProvider cryptograph = new DESCryptoServiceProvider())
 5    {
 6        CryptoStream cryptoStream = new CryptoStream(memoryStream, cryptograph.CreateEncryptor(key, iv), CryptoStreamMode.Write);
 7        using (StreamWriter streamWriter = new StreamWriter(cryptoStream))
 8        {
 9            streamWriter.Write(data);
10            return memoryStream.ToArray();
11        }
12    }
13 }
14
15 /// <summary>
16 /// Gets the memory stream.
17 /// </summary>
18 /// <returns>A new memory stream</returns>
19 private static MemoryStream GetMemoryStream()
20 {
21     MemoryStream stream;
22     MemoryStream tempStream = null;
23     try
24     {
25         tempStream = new MemoryStream();
26
27         stream = tempStream;
28         tempStream = null;
29     }
30     finally
31     {
32         if (tempStream != null)
33             tempStream.Dispose();
34     }
35     return stream;
36 }

Notice that we have to return the memoryStream inside the last using statement (line 10) because cryptoStream gets disposed at line 11 (because it's used in streamWriter using statement), which leads memoryStream to get also disposed at line 11 (because memoryStream is used to create the cryptoStream).

At least this code worked for me.

EDIT:

Funny as it may sound, I discovered that if you replace the GetMemoryStream method with the following code,

/// <summary>
/// Gets a memory stream.
/// </summary>
/// <returns>A new memory stream</returns>
private static MemoryStream GetMemoryStream()
{
    return new MemoryStream();
}

you get the same result.

Jimi
  • 1,208
  • 1
  • 11
  • 16
1

I wanted to solve this the right way - that is without suppressing the warnings and rightly disposing all disposable objects.

I pulled out 2 of the 3 streams as fields and disposed them in the Dispose() method of my class. Yes, implementing the IDisposable interface might not necessarily be what you are looking for but the solution looks pretty clean as compared to dispose() calls from all random places in the code.

public class SomeEncryption : IDisposable
    {
        private MemoryStream memoryStream;

        private CryptoStream cryptoStream;

        public static byte[] Encrypt(string data, byte[] key, byte[] iv)
        {
             // Do something
             this.memoryStream = new MemoryStream();
             this.cryptoStream = new CryptoStream(this.memoryStream, encryptor, CryptoStreamMode.Write);
             using (var streamWriter = new StreamWriter(this.cryptoStream))
             {
                 streamWriter.Write(plaintext);
             }
            return memoryStream.ToArray();
        }

       public void Dispose()
        { 
             this.Dispose(true);
             GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
        }

       protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
        {
            if (disposing)
            {
                if (this.memoryStream != null)
                {
                    this.memoryStream.Dispose();
                }

                if (this.cryptoStream != null)
                {
                    this.cryptoStream.Dispose();
                }
            }
        }
   }
divyanshm
  • 6,600
  • 7
  • 43
  • 72
1

The cryptostream is based on the memorystream.

What appears to be happening is that when the crypostream is disposed (at end of using) the memorystream is also disposed, then the memorystream is disposed again.

Shiraz Bhaiji
  • 64,065
  • 34
  • 143
  • 252
0

I just wanted to unwrap the code so we can see multiple calls to Dispose on the objects. The reality is that you are calling Dispose on objects twice:

memoryStream = new MemoryStream()
cryptograph = new DESCryptoServiceProvider()
cryptoStream = new CryptoStream()
streamWriter = new StreamWriter()

memoryStream.Dispose(); //implicitly owned by cryptoStream
cryptoStream.Dispose(); //implicitly owned by streamWriter
streamWriter.Dispose(); //through a using

cryptoStream.Dispose(); //INVALID: second dispose through using
cryptograph.Dispose(); //through a using
memorySTream.Dipose(); //INVALID: second dispose through a using

return memoryStream.ToArray(); //INVALID: accessing disposed memoryStream

While most .NET class are (hopefully) resilient against the mistake of multiple calls to .Dispose, not all classes are as defensive against programmer misuse.

Yes, the canonical documentation says that all class must be immune to programmer misuse from multiple calls to .Dispose:

The object must not throw an exception if its Dispose method is called multiple times

But this is the real world - where we're trying to eliminate bugs; not cause them. FX Cop knows this, and warns you.

You have a few choices;

  • only call Dispose once on any object; don't use using
  • keep calling dispose twice, and hope the code doesn't crash
  • suppress the warning
Ian Boyd
  • 246,734
  • 253
  • 869
  • 1,219
0

Off-topic but I would suggest you to use a different formatting technique for grouping usings:

using (var memoryStream = new MemoryStream())
{
    using (var cryptograph = new DESCryptoServiceProvider())
    using (var encryptor = cryptograph.CreateEncryptor(key, iv))
    using (var cryptoStream = new CryptoStream(memoryStream, encryptor, CryptoStreamMode.Write))
    using (var streamWriter = new StreamWriter(cryptoStream))
    {
        streamWriter.Write(data);
    }

    return memoryStream.ToArray();
}

I also advocate using vars here to avoid repetitions of really long class names.

P.S. Thanks to @ShellShock for pointing out I can't omit braces for first using as it would make memoryStream in return statement out of the scope.

Dan Abramov
  • 264,556
  • 84
  • 409
  • 511
  • 5
    Won't memoryStream.ToArray() be out of scope? – Polyfun Sep 30 '10 at 14:55
  • This is absolutely equivalent to the original piece of code. I just ommited curly braces, much like you can do so with `if`s (though I wouldn't advice this technique for anything other than `using`s). – Dan Abramov Sep 30 '10 at 14:58
  • 2
    In the original code, memoryStream.ToArray() was inside the scope of the first using; you've got it outside the scope. – Polyfun Sep 30 '10 at 15:07
  • Thank you so much, I just realized you meant `return` statement. So true. I edited the answer to reflect this. – Dan Abramov Sep 30 '10 at 15:29
  • I personally think the `using` without braces makes the code more fragile (think years of diffs and merges). https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2005/05/11/making-wrong-code-look-wrong/ & https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html – Tim Abell Jan 11 '17 at 16:23
-1

Avoid all usings and use nested Dispose-Calls!

    public static byte[] Encrypt(string data, byte[] key, byte[] iv)
    {
        MemoryStream memoryStream = null;
        DESCryptoServiceProvider cryptograph = null;
        CryptoStream cryptoStream = null;
        StreamWriter streamWriter = null;

        try
        {
            memoryStream = new MemoryStream();
            cryptograph = new DESCryptoServiceProvider();
            cryptoStream = new CryptoStream(memoryStream, cryptograph.CreateEncryptor(key, iv), CryptoStreamMode.Write);
            streamWriter = new StreamWriter(cryptoStream);

            streamWriter.Write(data);
            return memoryStream.ToArray();
        }
        finally 
        {
            if(streamWriter != null)
                streamWriter.Dispose();
            else if(cryptoStream != null)
                cryptoStream.Dispose();
            else if(memoryStream != null)
                memoryStream.Dispose();

            if (cryptograph != null)
                cryptograph.Dispose();
        }
    }
  • 1
    Please explain why you should avoid `using` in this case. – StuperUser Oct 22 '12 at 11:19
  • 1
    You could keep the using-statement in the middle, but you have to resolve the other ones. To get a logical coherent and in all directions upgradeable solution I decided to remove all usings! – Harry Saltzman Oct 22 '12 at 16:59
-1

I used this kind of code that takes byte[] and return byte[] without using streams

public static byte[] Encrypt(byte[] data, byte[] key, byte[] iv)
{
  DES des = new DES();
  des.BlockSize = 128;
  des.Mode = CipherMode.CBC;
  des.Padding = PaddingMode.Zeros;
  des.IV = IV
  des.Key = key
  ICryptoTransform encryptor = des.CreateEncryptor();

  //and finaly operations on bytes[] insted of streams
  return encryptor.TransformFinalBlock(plaintextarray,0,plaintextarray.Length);
}

This way all you have to do is conversion from string to byte[] using encodings.

Luka Rahne
  • 10,336
  • 3
  • 34
  • 56
-4

This compiles without warning:

    public static byte[] Encrypt(string data, byte[] key, byte[] iv)
    {
        MemoryStream memoryStream = null;
        DESCryptoServiceProvider cryptograph = null;
        CryptoStream cryptoStream = null;
        StreamWriter streamWriter = null;
        try
        {
            memoryStream = new MemoryStream();
            cryptograph = new DESCryptoServiceProvider();
            cryptoStream = new CryptoStream(memoryStream, cryptograph.CreateEncryptor(key, iv), CryptoStreamMode.Write);
            var result = memoryStream;              
            memoryStream = null;
            streamWriter = new StreamWriter(cryptoStream);
            cryptoStream = null;
            streamWriter.Write(data);
            return result.ToArray();
        }
        finally
        {
            if (memoryStream != null)
                memoryStream.Dispose();
            if (cryptograph != null)
                cryptograph.Dispose();
            if (cryptoStream != null)
                cryptoStream.Dispose();
            if (streamWriter != null)
                streamWriter.Dispose();
        }
    }

Edit in response to the comments: I just verified again that this code does not generate the warning, while the original one does. In the original code, CryptoStream.Dispose() and MemoryStream().Dispose() are actually called twice (which may or may not be a problem).

The modified code works as follows: references are set to null, as soon as responsibilty for disposing is transferred to another object. E.g. memoryStream is set to null after the call to CryptoStream constructor succeeded. cryptoStream is set to null, after the call to StreamWriter constructor succeeded. If no exception occurs, streamWriter is disposed in the finally block and will in turn dispose CryptoStream and MemoryStream.

Henrik
  • 23,186
  • 6
  • 42
  • 92
  • 86
    -1 It's really bad to create ugly code just to comply with a warning that [should be suppressed](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3831676/ca2202-how-to-solve-this-case/3839419#3839419). – Jordão Aug 03 '11 at 15:41
  • 4
    I'd agree that you shouldn't butcher you code for something that could end up fixed at some point in the future, just suppress. – peteski Oct 25 '11 at 13:00
  • 3
    How does this solve the problem? CA2202 is still reported because memoryStream can still be disposed of twice in the finally block. – Chris Gessler Jun 23 '12 at 15:04
  • 1
    @ChrisGessler - I don't see how memoryStream could possibly be disposed of twice. – Henrik Jun 23 '12 at 15:26
  • 3
    Since CryptoStream calls Dispose on the MemoryStream internally, it could be called twice, which is the reason for the warning. I tried your solution and still get the warning. – Chris Gessler Jun 23 '12 at 15:56
  • @ChrisGessler - if cryptoStream.Dispose is called in the finally block, CryptoStream constructor did not throw and memoryStream was set to null, so memoryStream.Dispose was not called in the finally block. I don't have access to code analysis at the moment, so I cannot check if the warning is issued. But I think I checked that there is no warning before posting the answer. – Henrik Jun 23 '12 at 16:16
  • I'm curious, if 'memoryStream' is set to null then how is Disposed called? If 'result' is set to reference 'memoryStream', when is it Disposed? If cryptoStream is set to null, when is it Disposed, which is supposed to call dispose of the internal reference to the memory stream? OK... my head hurts. I think I'll stick with using statements. – Chris Gessler Jun 23 '12 at 21:29
  • 1
    Calling Dispose does not set the values to null -- not your local handles to them, and not the handles to them that the other objects are holding -- the above code can DEFINITELY still dispose the objects multiple times. -- and it doesn't throw because it's OKAY to dispose these objects multiple times -- they're made to do that! This approach is both broken and completely unnecessary -- if it happens to make the warnings go away, it does so only because you've managed to confuse FxCop! – BrainSlugs83 Nov 25 '13 at 05:38
  • @BrainSlugs83 Of course Dispose doesn't set the values to null, that's why it's explictely done in the code. And no, it can not dispose multiple times. Why do you think it could? – Henrik Nov 25 '13 at 08:03
  • 1.) Where in the above code are you setting the values to null after disposing them? I don't see it. (not that it would make a difference in this case, as they leave scope and will never get reused.) 2.) Each parent stream has a handle to each child stream: so calling memoryStream.Dispose disposes MemoryStream the first time, and then calling cryptoStream.Dispose calls Dispose on memoryStream the second time, calling streamWriter.Dispose() would cause a second call to cryptoStream.Dispose, etc.., etc.. -- each Stream object except the last one in the chain is being disposed twice. – BrainSlugs83 Nov 26 '13 at 06:24
  • If you change the if to "else if" as suggested by another answer (with nearly identical code, wow!) you would not be disposing the objects multiple times -- but in that case I would recommend walking in the reverse order -- but still -- that's dumb -- you should be the one disposing the objects that you create. – BrainSlugs83 Nov 26 '13 at 06:29
  • 1
    @BrainSlugs83 Look at the code again. If e.g. `cryptoStream` is disposed in the finally-block, that means the line `cryptoStream = new ...` succeeded. `memoryStream` is set to `null` after that, so it is *not* disposed before disposing cryptoStream. – Henrik Nov 26 '13 at 07:39
  • 2
    Oh jeez, you're correct -- I didn't expect there to be cleanup-logic mixed in with your ... logic-logic ... -- that's just bizarre and cryptic -- it's certainly clever -- but again, scary -- please don't do this in production code; to be clear: you do get that there is no actual functional issue that this is solving, correct? (It's okay to dispose these objects multiple times.) -- I would remove the down vote if I could (SO prevents me, it says you have to edit the answer) -- but I would only do so reluctantly... -- and seriously, don't ever do this. – BrainSlugs83 Dec 12 '13 at 20:43