The Java Language Specification (JLS) allows 64-bit long
and double
values to be treated as two 32-bit values. For example, a 64-bit write operation could be performed as two separate 32-bit operations.
According to the JLS, §17.7, "Non-Atomic Treatment of double
and long
" [JLS 2015]:
For the purposes of the Java programming language memory model, a single write to a non-volatile
long
ordouble
value is treated as two separate writes: one to each 32-bit half. This can result in a situation where a thread sees the first 32 bits of a 64-bit value from one write, and the second 32 bits from another write....
Some implementations may find it convenient to divide a single write action on a 64-bit
long
ordouble
value into two write actions on adjacent 32-bit values. For efficiency's sake, this behavior is implementation-specific; an implementation of the Java Virtual Machine is free to perform writes tolong
anddouble
values atomically or in two parts.
This behavior can result in indeterminate values being read in code that is required to be thread-safe. Consequently, multithreaded programs must ensure atomicity when reading or writing 64-bit values.
Noncompliant Code Example
In this noncompliant code example, if one thread repeatedly calls the assignValue()
method and another thread repeatedly calls the printLong()
method, the printLong()
method could occasionally print a value of i
that is neither zero nor the value of the j
argument:
class LongContainer { private long i = 0; void assignValue(long j) { i = j; } void printLong() { System.out.println("i = " + i); } }
A similar problem can occur when i
is declared double
.
Compliant Solution (Volatile)
This compliant solution declares i
volatile. Writes and reads of long
and double
volatile values are always atomic.
class LongContainer { private volatile long i = 0; void assignValue(long j) { i = j; } void printLong() { System.out.println("i = " + i); } }
It is important to ensure that the argument to the assignValue()
method is obtained from a volatile variable or obtained as the result of an atomic read. Otherwise, a read of the variable argument can itself expose a vulnerability.
The semantics of volatile
explicitly exclude any guarantee of the atomicity of compound operations that involve read-modify-write sequences such as incrementing a value (see VNA02-J. Ensure that compound operations on shared variables are atomic for more information).
Exceptions
VNA05-J-EX0: If all reads and writes of 64-bit long
and double
values occur within a synchronized region, the atomicity of the read/write is guaranteed. This requires both that the value is exposed only through synchronized methods in the class and that the value is inaccessible from other code (whether directly or indirectly). For more information, see VNA02-J. Ensure that compound operations on shared variables are atomic.
VNA05-J-EX1: This rule can be ignored for platforms that guarantee that 64-bit long
and double
values are read and written as atomic operations. Note, however, that such guarantees are not portable across different platforms.
Risk Assessment
Failure to ensure the atomicity of operations involving 64-bit values in multithreaded applications can result in reading and writing indeterminate values. However, many Java Virtual Machines read and write 64-bit values atomically even though the specification does not require them to.
Rule | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
VNA05-J | Low | Unlikely | Medium | P2 | L3 |
Automated Detection
Some static analysis tools are capable of detecting violations of this rule.
Tool | Version | Checker | Description |
---|---|---|---|
ThreadSafe | 1.3 | CCE_SL_INCONSISTENT | Implemented |
Related Guidelines
Bibliography
Section 3.1.2, "Non-atomic 64-Bit Operations" | |
| |
[JLS 2015] |
4 Comments
Pennie Walters
Automated Detection section is incomplete.
Robert Seacord (Manager)
if the section is empty, just remove it. this is an optional section that is only used when we are aware of existing analyzers which can detect violations of the guideline.
James Ahlborn
why is the use of synchronized called out as exception VNA05-EX0? seems to me that use of synchronized blocks is just another solution to this problem (much like VNA00-J shows various solutions using volatile, synchronized, and Atomic utils). For that matter, AtomicLong is another solution as well.
Mohsen Vakilian
This bug pattern (VNA05-J) is subsumed by VNA00-J. That is, if a program doesn't contain any instances of VNA00-J, it won't contain an instance of VNA05-J either, but not vice-versa. This is acknowledged by the description of VNA00-J:
What is the motivation for bug pattern VNA05-J?