Page History

...

The Java Language Specification also permits reads and writes of 64-bit values to be non-atomic. For more information, see CON25-J. Ensure atomicity when reading and writing 64-bit values.

Noncompliant Code Example (Logical Negation)

This noncompliant code example declares a shared boolean flag variable and provides a toggle() method that negates the current value of flag.

...

As a result, the effect of the call by t₂ is not reflected in flag; the program behaves as if toggle() was called only once, not twice.

Noncompliant Code Example (Bitwise Negation)

Similarly, the toggle() method can use the compound assignment operator ^= to negate the current value of flag.

...

This code is also not thread-safe. A data race exists because ^= is a non-atomic compound operation.

Noncompliant Code Example (volatile)

Declaring flag as volatile does not help either:

...

This code remains unsuitable for multithreaded use because declaring a variable as volatile does not guarantee the atomicity of compound operations on it.

Compliant Solution (Synchronization)

This compliant solution declares both the toggle() and getFlag() methods as synchronized.

...

Compliance with CON04-J. Use private final lock objects to synchronize classes that may interact with untrusted code can reduce the likelihood of misuse by ensuring that untrusted callers cannot access the lock object.

Compliant Solution (Volatile-Read, Synchronized-Write)

In this compliant solution, the getFlag() method is not synchronized, and flag is declared as volatile. This solution is compliant because the read of flag in the getFlag() method is an atomic operation and the volatile qualification assures visibility. The toggle() method still requires synchronization because it performs a non-atomic operation.

...

CON11-J. Do not assume that declaring an object reference volatile guarantees visibility of its members also addresses the volatile-read, synchronized-write pattern.

Compliant Solution (Read-Write Lock)

This compliant solution uses a read-write lock to ensure atomicity and visibility.

...

Profiling the application can determine the suitability of read-write locks.

Compliant Solution (AtomicBoolean)

This compliant solution declares flag as an AtomicBoolean type.

...

The flag variable is updated using the compareAndSet() method of the AtomicBoolean class. All updates are visible to other threads.

Noncompliant Code Example (Addition of Primitives)

In this noncompliant code example, multiple threads can invoke the setValues() method to set the a and b fields. Because this class does not test for integer overflow, a user of the Adder class must ensure that the arguments to the setValues() method can be added without overflow. (For more information, see INT00-J. Perform explicit range checking to ensure integer operations do not overflow.)

...

Note that declaring the variables as volatile does not resolve the issue because these compound operations involve reads and writes of multiple variables.

Noncompliant Code Example (Addition of Atomic Integers)

In this noncompliant code example, a and b are replaced with atomic integers.

...

The simple replacement of the two int fields with atomic integers in this example does not eliminate the race condition because the compound operation a.get() + b.get() is still non-atomic.

Compliant Solution (Addition)

This compliant solution synchronizes the setValues() and getSum() methods to ensure atomicity.

...

Any operations within the synchronized methods are now atomic with respect to other synchronized methods that lock on that object's monitor (intrinsic lock). It is now possible, for example, to add overflow checking to the synchronized getSum() method without introducing the possibility of a race condition.

Risk Assessment

If operations on shared variables are not atomic, unexpected results can be produced. For example, information can be disclosed inadvertently because one user can receive information about other users.

Automated Detection

The SureLogic Flashlight tool can diagnose violations of this guideline as instance fields with empty locksets.

Related Vulnerabilities

Any vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule are listed on the CERT website.

References

\[[API 06|AA. Java References#API 06]\] Class AtomicInteger
\[[JLS 05|AA. Java References#JLS 05]\] [Chapter 17, Threads and Locks|http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/memory.html], Section 17.4.5 Happens-Before Order, Section 17.4.3 Programs and Program Order, Section 17.4.8 Executions and Causality Requirements
\[[Tutorials 08|AA. Java References#Tutorials 08]\] [Java Concurrency Tutorial|http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/essential/concurrency/index.html]
\[[Lea 00|AA. Java References#Lea 00]\] Section 2.2.7 The Java Memory Model, Section 2.1.1.1 Objects and Locks
\[[Bloch 08|AA. Java References#Bloch 08]\] Item 66: Synchronize access to shared mutable data
\[[Goetz 06|AA. Java References#Goetz 06]\] 2.3. "Locking"
\[[MITRE 09|AA. Java References#MITRE 09]\] [CWE ID 667|http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/667.html] "Insufficient Locking," [CWE ID 413|http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/413.html] "Insufficient Resource Locking," [CWE ID 366|http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/366.html] "Race Condition within a Thread," [CWE ID 567|http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/567.html] "Unsynchronized Access to Shared Data"

Issue Tracking

||Completed||Priority||Locked||CreatedDate||CompletedDate||Assignee||Name||

...