To avoid data corruption in multithreaded Java programs, shared data must be protected from concurrent modifications and accesses. This can be performed at the object level by using {{synchronized}} methods or blocks. However, excessive use of synchronization may result in deadlocks (See [CON08-J. Do not call alien methods that synchronize on the same objects as any callers in the execution chain]).
According to the Java Language Specification \[[JLS 05|AA. Java References#JLS 05]\], "The Java programming language neither prevents nor requires detection of deadlock conditions." \[[JLS 05|AA. Java References#JLS 05]\]. Deadlocks can arise when unlesstwo or eachmore threadthreads requestsrequest and releasesrelease locks in thedifferent same orderorders.
h2. Noncompliant Code Example
This noncompliant code example can deadlock because synchronizationof isexcessive implemented incorrectlysynchronization. Assume that an attacker has two bank accounts and is capable of requesting two {{depositAllAmount()}} operations in succession, one each from the two threads started in {{main()}}.
{code:bgColor=#FFcccc}
class BankAccount {
private int balanceAmount; // Total amount in bank account
private BankAccount(int balance) {
this.balanceAmount = balance;
}
// Deposits the amount from this object instance to BankAccount instance argument ba
private synchronized void depositAllAmount(BankAccount ba) {
System.out.println("Depositing all amount...");
ba.balanceAmount += this.balanceAmount;
this.balanceAmount = 0; // withdraw all amount from this instance
ba.displayAllAmount(); // Display the new balanceAmount in ba (may cause deadlock)
}
private synchronized void displayAllAmount() {
System.out.println(balanceAmount);
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
final BankAccount a = new BankAccount(5000);
final BankAccount b = new BankAccount(6000);
// These two threads correspond to two malicious requests triggered by the attacker
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
a.depositAllAmount(b);
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
b.depositAllAmount(a);
}
});
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
{code}
Objects of class {{BankAccount}} represent bank accounts. The {{balanceAmount}} field represents the total balance amount available for a particular object (bank account). A user is allowed to initiate an operation _deposit all amount_ that transfers the balance amount from one account to another. This is equivalent to closing a bank account and transferring the balance to a different (existing or new) account.
An attacker may cause the program to construct two threads that initiate balance transfers from two different {{BankAccount}} object instances, {{a}} and {{b}}. The two transfers are performed from instance {{a}} to {{b}} and {{b}} to {{a}}. The first thread atomically transfers the amount from {{a}} to {{b}} by depositing the balance from {{a}} to {{b}} and withdrawing the entire balance from {{a}}. The second thread performs the reverse operation, that is, it transfers the balance from {{b}} to {{a}} and withdraws the balance from {{b}}. These operations are safe up to this point. However, the {{depositAllAmount()}} method (first thread) invokes the {{synchronized}} {{displayAllAmount()}} method on the instance of object {{b}}. The {{displayAllAmount()}} may request the monitor that is already secured by the second thread that is performing the reverse transfer. The second thread may itself be blocked waiting to enter the monitor secured by the {{displayAllAmount()}} method of the first thread that is attempting to display the balance amount of instance {{a}}. This constitutes a deadlock condition.
The threads in this program request monitors in varying order depending on the interleaving of method calls. If {{Thread T1}} finishes executing before {{Thread T2}}, or {{T2}} before {{T1}}, there are no issues because in thisthese casecases, locks are acquired adand released in the propersame order. Sequences where the threads alternate, such as, {{T1}}, {{T2}}, {{T1}}, {{T2}} canmay resultdeadlock. in a deadlock.
h2. Compliant Solution (avoid excessive synchronization)
The deadlock can be avoided by declaring the {{balanceAmount}} field as {{volatile}} and removing the {{synchronized}} keyword from the {{displayAllAmount()}} method.
{code:bgColor=#ccccff}
private volatile int balanceAmount;
//...
private void displayAllAmount() {
System.out.println(balanceAmount);
}
{code}
The {{displayAllAmount()}} method does not require additional synchronization because it atomically displays the latest value for the balance amount.
To be compliant, do not request a lock when it is already held by another object where that object is waiting for the requesting object to release its own lock. When this is not possible, avoid synchronizing unnecessary accesses.
h2. Noncompliant Code Example
This noncompliant code example consists of three integer arrays: {{distances}}, {{speeds}} and {{times}}. The distances are fixed and cannot be changed by the client. The client can pass a {{time}} array as an argument to method {{getAverageSpeed()}} to find the average speed. It can also pass a {{speed}} array as argument to method {{getAverageTime()}} to find the average time taken. This allows the client to calculate the third parameter from two given parameters. For example, speed is calculated as distance/time.
The example also uses an array of internal lock objects instead of intrinsic synchronization (or method synchronization) so that multiple threads do not interfere with the array elements when the arrays are being traversed. Because it is not possible to lock on primitive types, a direct lock on the array elements cannot be obtained. Instead, an array of raw {{Objects}}objects, ({{locks}}) is used. Moreover,This this fine-grained locking strategy is more flexible than using a single global lock object which has the effect of blocking all the array elements from being accessed from other threads while the computation is in progress.
{code:bgColor=#FFcccc}
public class RecursiveTravel {
final static int MAX = 20;
static int[] distances = new int[MAX];
static int[] times = new int[MAX];
static int[] speeds = new int[MAX];
static Object[] locks = new Object[MAX];
static {
for (int i = 0; i < MAX; i++) {
distances[i] = 10; // Assuming all distances are 10 for illustration
locks[i] = new Object(); // Create lock objects
}
}
double getAverageSpeed(int[] time) {
times = time.clone();
return getSpeed(0, 0) / MAX;
}
double getAverageTime(int[] speed) {
speeds = speed.clone();
return getTime(MAX - 1, 0) / MAX;
}
int getSpeed(int i, int speed) { // AcquireAcquires locks in nondecreasing order
if(i > MAX - 1) {
return speed;
}
synchronized(locks[i]) {
speed += distances[i]/times[i];
return getSpeed(++i, speed);
}
}
int getTime(int i, int time) { // AcquireAcquires locks in nonincreasing order
if(i <= -1) {
return time;
}
synchronized(locks[i]) {
time += distances[i]/speeds[i];
return getTime(--i, time);
}
}
}
{code}
The {{getSpeed()}} and {{getTime()}} methods recursively calculate the sum of the speeds and times, respectively, for each distance value in the array. TheThis implementation is deadlock prone because the recursive calls occur within the synchronized regions of these methods and acquire locks in opposite numerical orders. That is, {{getSpeed()}} requests locks from index 0 to {{MAX}} - 1 (19) whereas {{getTime()}} requests them from index {{MAX}} - 1 (19) to 0. Because of recursion, no previously acquired locks are released by either method. A deadlock occurs when two threads call these methods out of order in that, one thread calls {{getSpeed()}} while the other calls {{getTime()}} before either method has finished executing.
One such execution order that causes a deadlock is shown below:
{code}
Thread T1 (in getTime()) acquires lock:
i = 19
...
i = 0
Thread T1 (in getSpeed()) acquires lock:
i = 0
...
i = 18
Thread T2 (in getTime()) acquires lock:
i = 19
Thread T1 next wants, i = 19 which T2 holds
Thread T2 next wants, i = 18 which T1 holds
{code}
{mc}
// Class to make the above code run in a multi-threaded environment
public class RecursiveControl implements Runnable {
static RecursiveTravel t = new RecursiveTravel();
static int[] speed = new int[MAX];
static int[] time = new int[MAX];
static {
for (int i = 0; i < MAX; i++) {
speed[i] = 2;
time[i] = 2;
}
}
public void run() {
t.getTime(speed);
t.getSpeed(time);
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Runnable r1 = new RecursiveControl();
Runnable r2 = new RecursiveControl();
Thread c1 = new Thread(r1);
Thread c2 = new Thread(r2);
c1.start();
c2.start();
}
}
{mc}
h2. Compliant Solution
This compliant solution moves the recursive calls from the {{getSpeed()}} and {{getTime()}} methods to outside the {{synchronized}} block. Consequently, locks are released as soon as they are no longer needed. Also, the locks are acquired in the same order (nondecreasing) from both these methods. This eliminates potential deadlock conditions.
{code:bgColor=#ccccff}
public class RecursiveTravel {
// ...
double getAverageSpeed(int[] time
{code:bgColor=#ccccff}
public class RecursiveTravel {
// ...
double getAverageSpeed(int[] time) {
times = time.clone();
return getSpeed(MAX - 1, 0) / MAX;
}
double getAverageTime(int[] speed) {
timesspeeds = timespeed.clone();
return getSpeedgetTime(MAX - 1, 0) / MAX;
}
doubleint getAverageTimegetSpeed(int[] i, int speed) {
// Acquire locks speedsin = speed.clone();nondecreasing order
return getTime(MAX - 1, 0) / MAX;
}
int getSpeed(int i, int speed) { // Acquire locks in nondecreasing order
if(i if(i > MAX - 1) {
return speed;
}
synchronized(locks[i]) {
speed += distances[i]/times[i];
}
return getSpeed(++i, speed); // Moved outside of synchronized region
}
int getTime(int i, int time) { // Acquire locks in nondecreasing order
if(i > MAX - 1) {
return time;
}
synchronized(locks[i]) {
time += distances[i]/speeds[i];
}
return getTime(++i, time); // Moved outside of synchronized region
}
}
{code}
Consequently, locks are released as soon as they are no longer needed. Also, the locks are acquired in the same order (nondecreasing) from both these methods. This eliminates potential deadlock conditions.
h2. Risk Assessment
Acquiring and releasing locks in the wrong order may result in deadlocks.
|| Rule || Severity || Likelihood || Remediation Cost || Priority || Level ||
| CON12- J | low | likely | high | {color:green}{*}P3{*}{color} | {color:green}{*}L3{*}{color} |
h3. Automated Detection
TODO
h3. Related Vulnerabilities
Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the [CERT website|https://www.kb.cert.org/vulnotes/bymetric?searchview&query=FIELD+KEYWORDS+contains+CON34-J].
h2. References
\[[JLS 05|AA. Java References#JLS 05]\] [Chapter 17, Threads and Locks|http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/memory.html]
\[[Halloway 00|AA. Java References#Halloway 00]\]
\[[MITRE 09|AA. Java References#MITRE 09]\] [CWE ID 412|http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/412.html] "Unrestricted Lock on Critical Resource"
----
[!The CERT Sun Microsystems Secure Coding Standard for Java^button_arrow_left.png!|CON11-J. Do not assume that declaring an object volatile guarantees visibility of its members] [!The CERT Sun Microsystems Secure Coding Standard for Java^button_arrow_up.png!|11. Concurrency (CON)] [!The CERT Sun Microsystems Secure Coding Standard for Java^button_arrow_right.png!|CON13-J. Do not try to force thread shutdown]
| 