Page History

 A significant number of concurrency vulnerabilities arise from locking on the wrong kind of object. An analysis of the JDK 1.6.0 source code discovered 31 bugs that fell into this category \[[Pugh 08|AA. Java References#Pugh 08]\]. It is important to recognize the entities with whom synchronization is required rather than indiscreetly scavenging for objects to synchronize on. {color:red}we need a more precise statement about what specifically this guideline requires{color} {mc} any suggestions? {mc}  {mc} not yet {mc} 

h2. Noncompliant Code Example ({{Boolean}} lock object)

This noncompliant code example synchronizes on a {{Boolean}} lock object. 

{code:bgColor=#FFcccc}
private final Boolean initialized = Boolean.FALSE;

public void doSomething() {
  synchronized (initialized) { 
    // ...
  }
}
{code}

Variables of type {{Boolean}} are unsuitable as locks because they can only assume the values {{TRUE}} and {{FALSE}}. Consequently, Java may allocate only two Boolean objects; one which represents {{FALSE}} and the other which represents {{TRUE}}.  In this example, {{initialized}} references the {{FALSE}} object.  If any other code inadvertently synchronizes on the same object (a {{Boolean}} variable with the value {{FALSE}}), the system may become unresponsiveness or deadlock.

{mc}
// Rephrased
The {{Boolean}} type is unsuitable for locking purposes because it allows only two values - {{TRUE}} and {{FALSE}}. Boolean literals containing the same value share unique instances of class {{Boolean}} in the JVM. In this example, {{initialized}} references the instance corresponding to the value {{FALSE}}. If any other code inadvertently synchronizes on  a {{Boolean}} literal with the value {{FALSE}}, the lock instance is reused and the system may become unresponsiveness or deadlock.
{mc}


h2. Noncompliant Code Example (boxed primitive)

This noncompliant code example locks on a boxed {{Integer}} object.

{code:bgColor=#FFcccc}
int lock

private int count = 0;
private final Integer Lock = lockcount; // Boxed primitive Lock is shared

public void doSomething() {
  synchronized (Lock) {
    count++;
    // ...
  }
}
{code}

private int count and consequently suffer from the same problem as {{Boolean}} constants. If the value of the primitive can be represented as a byte, the wrapper object is reused. Note that the use of the boxed {{Integer}} wrapper object is insecure; instances of the {{Integer}} object constructed using the {{new}} operator ({{new Integer(value)}}) are unique and not reused. In general, holding a lock on any data type that contains a boxed value is insecure. 


h2. Compliant Solution (Integer)

This compliant solution recommends locking on a non-boxed Integer. The {{doSomething()}} method synchronizes using the intrinsic lock of the {{Integer}} instance, {{Lock}}.

{code:bgColor=#ccccff}
int lock = 0;
private final Integer Lock = new Integer(lockcount); 

public void doSomething() {
  synchronized (Lock) {
    count++;
    // ...
  }
}
{code}

 not shared with other {{Integer}} objects or boxed integers having the same value. While this is an acceptable solution, it may cause maintenance problems because developers might incorrectly assume that boxed integers are appropriate lock objects.  A more appropriate solution is to synchronize on an internal private final lock {{Object}} as described in the following compliant solution.


h2. Noncompliant Code Example (interned {{String}} object)

This noncompliant code example locks on an interned {{String}} object.

{code:bgColor=#FFcccc}
private final String _lock = new String("LOCK").intern();

public void doSomething() {
  synchronized (_lock) {
    // ...
  }
}
{code}  

According to the Java API \[[API 06|AA. Java References#API 06]\], class {{

 field {{lock}}, the field references a common {{String}} constant. Locking on {{String}} constants has the same problem as locking {{Boolean}} constants. 

Additionally, hostile code from any other package can exploit this vulnerability if the class is accessible (see [CON04-J. Synchronize using an internal private final lock object]).

h2. Noncompliant Code Example ({{String}} literal)

This noncompliant code example locks on a final {{String}} literal.

{code:bgColor=#FFcccc}
// This bug was found in jetty-6.1.3 BoundedThreadPool
private final String _lock = "LOCK";

// ...public void doSomething() {
  synchronized (_lock) { 
    // ...
  }
// ...
{code}  

A {{String}} literal is a constant and is interned. Consequently, it suffers from the same pitfalls as the preceding noncompliant code example. 


h2. Compliant Solution ({{String}} instance)

This compliant solution locks on a {{String}} instance that is not interned. 

{

code:bgColor=#ccccff}
private final String _lock = new String("LOCK");

public void doSomething() {
  synchronized (_lock) {
    // ...
  }
}
{code}

A {

{String}} instance differs from a {{String}} literal. The instance has a unique reference and its own intrinsic lock that is not shared by other string object instances or literals. A better approach is to synchronize on an internal private final lock object as shown in the following compliant solution.

h2. Compliant Solution (internal private final lock {{Object}})

This compliant solution synchronizes on an internal private final lock object. This is one of the few cases where a {{java.lang.Object}} instance is useful.

{code:bgColor=#ccccff}
private final Object lock = new Object();

public void doSomething() {
  synchronized (lock) {
    // ...
  }
}
{code} 

For more information on using an {{Object}} as a lock, see [CON04-J. Synchronize using an internal private final lock object].


h2. Noncompliant Code Example ({{getClass()}} lock object)

Synchronizing on return values of the {{Object.getClass()}} method, rather than a class literal can lead to unexpected behavior. Whenever the implementing class is subclassed, the subclass locks on a completely different {{Class}} object (subclass's type). 

{code:bgColor=#FFcccc}
public void doSomething() {
  synchronized(getClass()) {
    // ... 
  }
}
{code}

Section 4.3.2 "The Class Object" of the Java Language specification \[[JLS 05|AA. Java References#JLS 05]\] describes how method synchronization works:

{quote}
A class method that is declared {{synchronized}} synchronizes on the lock associated with the {{Class}} object of the class.
{quote}

This does not mean that a subclass using {{getClass()}} can only synchronize on the {{Class}} object of the base class. In fact, it will lock on its own {{Class}} object, which may or may not be what the programmer had in mind. The intent should be clearly documented or annotated.


h2. Compliant Solution (class name qualification)

Explicitly define the name of the class through name qualification (superclass in this compliant solution) in the synchronized block. 

{code:bgColor=#ccccff}
public void doSomething() {
  synchronized(SuperclassName.class) { 
    // ... 
  }
}
{code}

The class object that is being used for synchronization should not be accessible to untrusted code. If the class is package-private, callers from other packages may not access the class object, ensuring its trustworthiness as an intrinsic lock object. For more information, see [CON04-J. Synchronize using an internal private final lock object].


h2. Compliant Solution ({{Class.forName()}})

This compliant solution uses the {{Class.forName()}} method to synchronize on the superclass's {{Class}} object.

{code:bgColor=#ccccff}
public void doSomething() {
  synchronized(Class.forName("SuperclassName")) { 
    // ... 
  }
}
{code}

The class object that is being used for synchronization should also not be accessible to untrusted code. Furthermore, care must be taken to ensure that untrusted inputs are not accepted as arguments while loading classes using {{Class.forname()}}. (See [SEC05-J. Do not expose standard APIs that use the immediate caller's class loader instance to untrusted code] for more information.)

h2. Noncompliant Code Example ({{ReentrantLock}} lock object)

This noncompliant code example incorrectly synchronizes on a {{ReentrantLock}} lock object.

{code:bgColor=#FFcccc}
private final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();

public void doSomething() {
  synchronized(lock) {
    // ... 
  }
}
{code}

Similarly, it is inappropriate to lock on an object of a class that implements either the {{Lock}} or {{Condition}} interface (or both) of package {{java.util.concurrent.locks}}. Using intrinsic locks of these classes is a questionable practice even though the code may appear to function correctly. This problem is commonly seen when code is refactored from intrinsic locking to the {{java.util.concurrent}} dynamic locking utilities.


h2. Compliant Solution ({{lock()}} and {{unlock()}})

Instead of using the intrinsic locks of objects that implement the {{Lock}} interface, such as {{ReentrantLock}}, use the {{lock()}} and {{unlock()}} methods provided by the {{Lock}} interface.

{code:bgColor=#ccccff}
private final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();

public void doSomething() {
  lock.lock();
  try {
    // ...
  } finally {
    lock.unlock();
  }
}
{code}

If there is no requirement for using the advanced functionality of the dynamic locking utilities of package {{java.util.concurrent}}, prefer using the {{Executor}} framework or other concurrency primitives such as synchronization and atomic classes.

h2. Noncompliant Code Example (collection view)

This noncompliant code example synchronizes on the view of a synchronized map.

{code:bgColor=#FFcccc}
// map has package-private accessibility
final Map<Integer, String> map = Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap<Integer, String>());
private final Set<Integer> set = map.keySet();

public void doSomething() {
  synchronized(set) {  // Incorrectly synchronizes on set
    for (Integer k : set) { 
      // ...
    }
  }
}
{code}

When using synchronization wrappers, the synchronization object should be the {{Collection}} object. The synchronization is necessary to enforce atomicity ([CON07-J. Do not assume that a grouping of calls to independently atomic methods is atomic]). This noncompliant code example demonstrates inappropriate synchronization resulting from locking on a Collection view instead of the Collection object itself \[[Tutorials 08|AA. Java References#Tutorials 08]\]. 

The {{java.util.Collections}} interface's documentation \[[API 06|AA. Java References#API 06]\] warns about the consequences of following this practice:
{quote}
It is imperative that the user manually synchronize on the returned map when iterating over any of its collection views...  Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior. 
{quote}


h2. Compliant Solution (collection lock object)

This compliant solution synchronizes on the {{Collection}} object instead of the {{Collection}} view. 

{code:bgColor=#ccccff}
// map has package-private accessibility
final Map<Integer, String> map = Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap<Integer, String>());
private final Set<Integer> set = map.keySet();

public void doSomething() {
  synchronized(map) {  // Synchronize on map, not set
    for (Integer k : set) { 
      // ...
    }
  }
}
{code}


h2. Risk Assessment

Synchronizing on an inappropriate object can provide a false sense of thread safety and result in non-deterministic behavior. 

|| Rule || Severity || Likelihood || Remediation Cost || Priority || Level ||
| CON02- J | medium | probable | medium | {color:#cc9900}{*}P8{*}{color} | {color:#cc9900}{*}L2{*}{color} |


h3. Automated Detection



The following table summarizes the examples flagged as violations by FindBugs: 

||Noncompliant Code Example||Flagged||Checker||Message||
|{{Boolean}} lock object|Yes|DL_SYNCHRONIZATION_ON_BOOLEAN|Synchronization on Boolean could deadlock|
|Boxed primitive|Yes|DL_SYNCHRONIZATION_ON_BOXED_PRIMITIVE|Synchronization on Integer could deadlock|
|interned {{String}} object|No|DL_SYNCHRONIZATION_ON_SHARED_CONSTANT|n/a|
|String literal|Yes||Synchronization on interned String could deadlock|
|{{getClass()}} lock object|No|WL_USING_GETCLASS_RATHER_THAN_CLASS_LITERAL|n/a|
|{{ReentrantLock}} lock object|No||n/a|
|Collection view|No|n/a|

The following table summarizes the examples flagged as violations by [SureLogic Flashlight|http://www.surelogic.com/]: 

||Noncompliant Code Example||Flagged||Message||
|{{Boolean}} lock object|No|No obvious issues|
|Boxed primitive|No|No obvious issues|
|interned {{String}} object|No|No obvious issues|
|String literal|No||No data available about field accesses|
|{{getClass()}} lock object|No|No data available about field accesses|
|{{ReentrantLock}} lock object|No|No obvious issues|
|Collection view|No|No obvious issues|



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+CON36-J].

h2. References

\[[API 06|AA. Java References#API 06]\] Class String, Collections
\[[Findbugs 08|AA. Java References#Findbugs 08]\]. 
\[[Pugh 08|AA. Java References#Pugh 08]\] "Synchronization"
\[[Miller 09|AA. Java References#Miller 09]\] Locking
\[[Tutorials 08|AA. Java References#Tutorials 08]\] [Wrapper Implementations|http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/collections/implementations/wrapper.html]

----
[!The CERT Sun Microsystems Secure Coding Standard for Java^button_arrow_left.png!|VOID CON00-J. Synchronize access to shared mutable variables]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[!The CERT Sun Microsystems Secure Coding Standard for Java^button_arrow_up.png!|11. Concurrency (CON)]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[!The CERT Sun Microsystems Secure Coding Standard for Java^button_arrow_right.png!|CON03-J. Do not use background threads during class initialization]