...
A
...
consistent
...
locking
...
policy
...
guarantees
...
that
...
multiple
...
threads
...
cannot
...
simultaneously
...
access
...
or
...
modify
...
shared
...
data.
...
When two
...
or
...
more
...
operations
...
must be
...
performed
...
as
...
a
...
single
...
atomic
...
operation,
...
a
...
consistent
...
locking
...
policy must be implemented using either intrinsic synchronization or java.util.concurrent
...
utilities.
...
In
...
the
...
absence
...
of
...
such
...
a
...
policy,
...
the
...
code
...
is
...
susceptible
...
to
...
When presented with a set of operations, where each is guaranteed to be atomic, it is tempting to assume that a single operation consisting of individually atomic operations is guaranteed to be collectively atomic without additional locking. Similarly, programmers might incorrectly assume that use of a thread-safe Collection
is sufficient to preserve an invariant that involves the collection's elements without additional synchronization. A thread-safe class can only guarantee atomicity of its individual methods. A grouping of calls to such methods requires additional synchronization for the group.
Consider, for example, a scenario in which the standard thread-safe API lacks a single method both to find a particular person's record in a Hashtable
and to update that person's payroll information. In such cases, the two method invocations must be performed atomically.
Enumerations and iterators also require either explicit synchronization on the collection object (client-side locking) or use of a private final lock object.
Compound operations on shared variables are also non-atomic (see VNA02-J. Ensure that compound operations on shared variables are atomic for more information).
VNA04-J. Ensure that calls to chained methods are atomic describes a specialized case of this rule.
Noncompliant Code Example (AtomicReference
)
This noncompliant code example wraps references to BigInteger
objects within thread-safe AtomicReference
objects:
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
conditions. Given an invariant involving multiple objects, a programmer may incorrectly assume that individually atomic operations require no additional locking; however, this is not the case. Similarly, programmers may incorrectly assume that using a thread-safe {{Collection}} does not require explicit synchronization to preserve an invariant that involves the collection's elements. A thread-safe class can only guarantee atomicity of its individual methods. A grouping of calls to such methods requires additional synchronization. Consider, for example, a scenario where the standard thread-safe API does not provide a single method to both find a particular person's record in a {{Hashtable}} and update the corresponding payroll information. In such cases, the two method invocations must be performed atomically. Enumerations and iterators also require explicit synchronization on the collection object (client-side locking) or a private final lock object. Compound operations on shared variables are also non-atomic. See [CON01-J. Ensure that compound operations on shared variables are atomic] for more information. [CON30-J. Do not use method chaining implementations in a multi-threaded environment] describes a specialized case of this guideline. h2. Noncompliant Code Example ({{AtomicReference}}) This noncompliant code example wraps {{BigInteger}} objects within thread-safe {{AtomicReference}} objects. {code:bgColor=#FFcccc} final class Adder { private final AtomicReference<BigInteger> first; private final AtomicReference<BigInteger> second; public Adder(BigInteger f, BigInteger s) { first = new AtomicReference<BigInteger>(f); second = new AtomicReference<BigInteger>(s); } public void update(BigInteger f, BigInteger s) { // Unsafe first.set(f); second.set(s); } public BigInteger add() { // Unsafe return first.get().add(second.get()); } } {code} An {{AtomicReference}} is an object reference that can be updated atomically. However, operations combining {mc} "that combine"? {mc} more than one atomic reference are not atomic. In this noncompliant code example, one thread may call {{update()}} while a second thread may call {{add()}}. This might cause the {{add()}} method to add the new value of {{first}} to the old value of {{second}}, yielding an erroneous result. h2. Compliant Solution (method synchronization) This compliant solution declares the {{update()}} and {{add()}} methods as {{synchronized}} to guarantee atomicity. {code:bgColor=#ccccff} |
AtomicReference
is an object reference that can be updated atomically. However, operations that combine more than one atomic reference are non-atomic. In this noncompliant code example, one thread may call update()
while a second thread may call add()
. This might cause the add()
method to add the new value of first
to the old value of second
, yielding an erroneous result.
Compliant Solution (Method Synchronization)
This compliant solution declares the update()
and add()
methods synchronized to guarantee atomicity:
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
final class Adder { // ... public synchronized void updateprivate final AtomicReference<BigInteger> first; private final AtomicReference<BigInteger> second; public Adder(BigInteger f, BigInteger s) { first.set = new AtomicReference<BigInteger>(f); second.set = new AtomicReference<BigInteger>(s); } public synchronized void update(BigInteger f, BigInteger add(s) { return first.getset().add(f); second.getset()s); } } {code} h2. Noncompliantpublic Codesynchronized ExampleBigInteger add() { return first.get().add(second.get()); } } |
Noncompliant Code Example (synchronizedList()
)
This noncompliant code example uses a java.util.ArrayList<E>
collection, which is not thread-safe. However, the example uses Collections.synchronizedList
as a synchronization wrapper for the ArrayList
. It subsequently uses an array, rather than an iterator, to iterate over the ArrayList
to avoid a ConcurrentModificationException
.
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
{{synchronizedList}}) This noncompliant code example uses a {{java.util.ArrayList<E>}} collection, which is not thread-safe. However, the {{Collections.synchronizedList}} is used as a synchronization wrapper for {{ArrayList}}. An array is used to iterate over {{Arraylist}} instead of an iterator to avoid a {{ConcurrentModificationException}}. {code:bgColor=#FFCCCC} final class IPHolder { private final List<InetAddress> ips = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList<InetAddress>()); public void addIPAddressaddAndPrintIPAddresses(InetAddress address) { ips.add(address); } InetAddress[] public void addAndPrintIPAddresses(InetAddress address) { addressCopy = addIPAddress(address); InetAddress[] addressCopy = (InetAddress[]) ips.toArray(new InetAddress[0]); // Iterate through array addressCopy ... } } |
Individually, the add()
and toArray()
collection methods are atomic. However, when called in succession (as shown in the addAndPrintIPAddresses()
method), there is no guarantee that the combined operation is atomic. The addAndPrintIPAddresses()
method contains a race condition that allows one thread to add to the list and a second thread to race in and modify the list before the first thread completes. Consequently, the addressCopy
array may contain more IP addresses than expected.
Compliant Solution (Synchronized Block)
The race condition can be eliminated by synchronizing on the underlying list's lock. This compliant solution encapsulates all references to the array list within synchronized blocks:
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
{code} Even though the {{Collection}} wrapper offers thread-safety guarantees for individual method invocations, a sequence of method calls is not atomic. For example, when multiple threads invoke the {{addAndPrintIPAddresses()}} method to add an IP address and iterate over the array {{addressCopy}}, each thread can observe {{addressCopy}} to contain a different number of IP addresses because of the race condition in the {{addAndPrintIPAddresses()}} method. h2. Compliant Solution (Synchronized Block) To eliminate the race conditions, ensure atomicity by using the underlying list's lock. This compliant solution includes all statements that use the array list within a synchronized block that locks on the list. {code:bgColor=#ccccff} final class IPHolder { private final List<InetAddress> ips = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList<InetAddress>()); public void addIPAddressaddAndPrintIPAddresses(InetAddress address) { synchronized (ips) { ips.add(address); } } public void addAndPrintIPAddresses(InetAddress address) { synchronized (ips) { InetAddress[] addressCopy = addIPAddress(address); InetAddress[] addressCopy = (InetAddress[]) ips.toArray(new InetAddress[0]); // Iterate through array addressCopy ... } } } {code} |
This
...
technique
...
is
...
also
...
called
...
client-side
...
locking [Goetz 2006] because the class holds a lock on an object that might be accessible to other classes. Client-side locking is not always an appropriate strategy (see LCK11-J. Avoid client-side locking when using classes that do not commit to their locking strategy for more information).
This code does not violate LCK04-J. Do not synchronize on a collection view if the backing collection is accessible because, although it synchronizes on a collection view (the synchronizedList
result), the backing collection is inaccessible and consequently cannot be modified by any code.
Note that this compliant solution does not actually use the synchronization offered by Collections.synchronizedList()
. If no other code in this solution used it, it could be eliminated.
Noncompliant Code Example (synchronizedMap()
)
This noncompliant code example defines the KeyedCounter
class that is not thread-safe. Although the HashMap
is wrapped in a synchronizedMap()
, the overall increment operation is not atomic [Lee 2009].
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
final class KeyedCounter {
private final Map<String, Integer> map =
Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap<String, Integer>());
public void increment(String key) {
Integer old = map.get(key);
int oldValue = (old == null) ? 0 : old.intValue();
if (oldValue == Integer.MAX_VALUE) {
throw new ArithmeticException("Out of range");
}
map.put( key, oldValue + 1);
}
public Integer getCount(String key) {
return map.get(key);
}
}
|
Compliant Solution (Synchronization)
This compliant solution ensures atomicity by using an internal private lock object to synchronize the statements of the increment()
and getCount()
methods:
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
final class KeyedCounter { private final Map<String, Integer> map = new HashMap<String, Integer>(); private final Object lock = new Object(); public void increment(String key) { synchronized (lock) { Integer old = map.get(key); int oldValue = (old == null) ? 0 : old.intValue(); if (oldValue == Integer.MAX_VALUE) { throw new ArithmeticException("Out of range"); } map.put(key, oldValue + 1); } } public Integer getCount \[[Goetz 06|AA. Java References#Goetz 06]\], because the class holds a lock on an object that might, presumably, be accessible to other classes. Client-side locking is not always an appropriate strategy; see [CON31-J. Avoid client-side locking when using classes that do not commit to their locking strategy] for more information. Although expensive in terms of performance, the {{CopyOnWriteArrayList}} and {{CopyOnWriteArraySet}} classes are sometimes used to create copies of the core {{Collection}} so that iterators do not fail with a runtime exception when some data in the {{Collection}} is modified. However, any updates to the {{Collection}} are not immediately visible to other threads. Consequently, the use of these classes is limited to boosting performance in code where the writes are fewer (or non-existent) as compared to the reads \[[JavaThreads 04|AA. Java References#JavaThreads 04]\]. In most other cases they must be avoided (see [MSC13-J. Do not modify the underlying collection when an iteration is in progress] for details on using these classes). This code does not violate [CON40-J. Do not synchronize on a collection view if the backing collection is accessible], because while it does synchronize on a collection view (the {{synchronizedList}}), the backing collection is not accessible, and hence cannot be modified by any code. h2. Noncompliant Code Example ({{synchronizedMap}}) This noncompliant code example defines a class {{KeyedCounter}} which is not thread-safe. Even though the {{HashMap}} is wrapped in a synchronized {{Map}}, the overall increment operation is not atomic. \[[Lee 09|AA. Java References#Lee 09]\] {code:bgColor=#FFCCCC} final class KeyedCounter { private final Map<String, Integer> map = new HashMap<String, Integer>(); private final Object lock = new Object(); public void increment(String key) { synchronized (lock) { Integer old =return map.get(key); int value = (old == null) ? 1 : old.intValue() + 1; map.put(key, value); } } public Integer getCount(String key) { synchronized (lock) { return map.get(key); } } // Other accessors ... } {code} Because the check for integer overflow following the addition is absent, the caller must ensure that the {{increment()}} method is called no more than {{Integer.MAX_VALUE}} times for any key. Refer to [INT00-J. Perform explicit range checking to ensure integer operations do not overflow] for more information. h2. Compliant Solution (atomic method) To ensure atomicity, this compliant solution uses a method that guarantees atomicity (AtomicInteger.incrementAndGet()). This provides a happens-before relationship between reading and writing any integer values in the map. {code:bgColor=#ccccff} final class KeyedCounter { private final ConcurrentMap<String, AtomicInteger> map = new ConcurrentHashMap<String, AtomicInteger>(); public void increment(String key) { AtomicInteger value = new AtomicInteger(0); AtomicInteger old = map.putIfAbsent(key, value); if (old != null) { value = old; } value.incrementAndGet(); // Increment the value atomically } public Integer getCount(String key) { AtomicInteger value = map.get(key); return value.get(); } } } } |
This compliant solution avoids using Collections.synchronizedMap()
because locking on the unsynchronized map provides sufficient thread-safety for this application. LCK04-J. Do not synchronize on a collection view if the backing collection is accessible provides more information about synchronizing on synchronizedMap()
objects.
Compliant Solution (ConcurrentHashMap
)
The previous compliant solution is safe for multithreaded use but does not scale because of excessive synchronization, which can lead to decreased performance.
The ConcurrentHashMap
class used in this compliant solution provides several utility methods for performing atomic operations and is often a good choice for algorithms that must scale [Lee 2009].
Note that this compliant solution still requires synchronization, because without it, the test to prevent overflow and the increment will not happen atomically, so two threads calling increment()
can still cause overflow. The synchronization block is smaller and does not include the lookup or addition of new values, so it has less impact on performance than the previous compliant solution.
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
final class KeyedCounter { private final ConcurrentMap<String, AtomicInteger> map = new ConcurrentHashMap<String, AtomicInteger>(); private final Object lock = new Object(); public void increment(String key) { AtomicInteger value = new AtomicInteger(); AtomicInteger old = map.putIfAbsent(key, value); if (old != null) { value = old; } synchronized (lock) { if (value.get() == Integer.MAX_VALUE) { throw new ArithmeticException("Out of range"); } value.incrementAndGet(); // Increment the value atomically } } public Integer getCount(String key) { AtomicInteger value = map.get(key); return (value == null) ? null : value.get(); } // Other accessors ... } {code} This compliant solution does not use {{Collections.synchronizedMap()}} because locking on the (unsynchronized) map provides sufficient thread-safety for this application. The guideline [CON40-J. Do not synchronize on a collection view if the backing collection is accessible] provides more information about synchronizing on {{synchronizedMap}} objects. To prevent overflow, the caller must ensure that the {{increment()}} method is called no more than {{Integer.MAX_VALUE}} times for any key. Refer to [INT00-J. Perform explicit range checking to ensure integer operations do not overflow] for more information. h2. Compliant Solution ({{ConcurrentHashMap}}) The previous compliant solution does not scale very well because a class with several {{synchronized}} methods can be a potential bottleneck as far as acquiring locks is concerned, and may further yield a deadlock or livelock. The class {{ConcurrentHashMap}} provides several utility methods for performing atomic operations and is often a good choice, as demonstrated in this compliant solution \[[Lee 09|AA. Java References#Lee 09]\]. {code:bgColor=#ccccff} final class KeyedCounter { private final ConcurrentMap<String, AtomicInteger> map = new ConcurrentHashMap<String, AtomicInteger>(); public void increment(String key) { AtomicInteger value = new AtomicInteger(); AtomicInteger old = map.putIfAbsent(key, value); if (old != null) { value = old; } value.incrementAndGet(); // Increment the value atomically } public Integer getCount(String key) { AtomicInteger value = map.get(key); return value.get(); } // Other accessors ... } {code} According to Goetz et al. \[[Goetz 06|AA. Java References#Goetz 06]\] section 5.2.1. ConcurrentHashMap: {quote} {{ConcurrentHashMap}}, along with the other concurrent collections, further improve on the synchronized collection classes by providing iterators that do not throw {{ConcurrentModificationException}}, as a result eliminating the need to lock the collection during iteration. The iterators returned by {{ConcurrentHashMap}} are weakly consistent instead of fail-fast. A weakly consistent iterator can tolerate concurrent modification, traverses elements as they existed when the iterator was constructed, and may (but is not guaranteed to) reflect modifications to the collection after the construction of the iterator. {quote} Note that methods such as {{size()}} and {{isEmpty()}} are allowed to return an approximate result for performance reasons. Code should not rely on these return values for deriving exact results. h2. Risk Assessment Non-atomic code can induce race conditions and affect program correctness. || Rule || Severity || Likelihood || Remediation Cost || Priority || Level || | CON07- J | low | probable | medium | {color:green}{*}P4{*}{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+CON38-J]. h2. References \[[API 06|AA. Java References#API 06]\] \[[JavaThreads 04|AA. Java References#JavaThreads 04]\] Section 8.2, "Synchronization and Collection Classes" \[[Goetz 06|AA. Java References#Goetz 06]\] Section 4.4.1, "Client-side Locking", Section 5.2.1, "ConcurrentHashMap" \[[Lee 09|AA. Java References#Lee 09]\] "Map & Compound Operation" ---- [!The CERT Sun Microsystems Secure Coding Standard for Java^button_arrow_left.png!|VOID CON06-J. Do not defer a thread that is holding a lock] [!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!|CON08-J. Do not call alien methods that synchronize on the same objects as any callers in the execution chain] |
According to Section 5.2.1., "ConcurrentHashMap
," of the work of Goetz and colleagues [Goetz 2006]:
ConcurrentHashMap
, along with the other concurrent collections, further improve on the synchronized collection classes by providing iterators that do not throwConcurrentModificationException
, as a result eliminating the need to lock the collection during iteration. The iterators returned byConcurrentHashMap
are weakly consistent instead of fail-fast. A weakly consistent iterator can tolerate concurrent modification, traverses elements as they existed when the iterator was constructed, and may (but is not guaranteed to) reflect modifications to the collection after the construction of the iterator.
Note that methods such as ConcurrentHashMap.size()
and ConcurrentHashMap.isEmpty()
are allowed to return an approximate result for performance reasons. Code should avoid relying on these return values when exact results are required.
Risk Assessment
Failure to ensure the atomicity of two or more operations that must be performed as a single atomic operation can result in race conditions in multithreaded applications.
Rule | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
VNA03-J | Low | Probable | Medium | P4 | L3 |
Automated Detection
Some static analysis tools are capable of detecting violations of this rule.
Tool | Version | Checker | Description | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CodeSonar |
| JAVA.CONCURRENCY.VOLATILE | Useless volatile Modifier (Java) | ||||||
Coverity | 7.5 | ATOMICITY | Implemented | ||||||
Parasoft Jtest |
| CERT.VNA03.SSUG CERT.VNA03.MRAV | Make the get method for a field synchronized if the set method is synchronized Access related Atomic variables in a synchronized block | ||||||
ThreadSafe |
| CCE_CC_NON_ATOMIC_GCP | Implemented |
Related Guidelines
CWE-362, Concurrent Execution Using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ("Race Condition") |
Bibliography
[API 2014] | |
Section 4.4.1, "Client-side Locking" | |
Section 8.2, Synchronization and Collection Classes | |
[Lee 2009] | Map & Compound Operation |
...