The double-checked locking idiom is a software design pattern used to reduce the overhead of acquiring a lock by first testing the locking criterion without actually acquiring the lock. Double-checked locking improves performance by limiting synchronization to the rare case of computing the field's value or constructing a new instance for the field to reference and by foregoing synchronization during the common case of retrieving an already-created instance or value.
Incorrect forms of the double-checked locking idiom include those that allow publication of an uninitialized or partially initialized object. Consequently, only those forms of the double-checked locking idiom that correctly establish a happens-before relationship both for the helper
reference and for the complete construction of the Helper
instance are permitted.
The double-checked locking idiom is frequently used to implement a singleton factory pattern that performs lazy initialization. Lazy initialization defers the construction of a member field or an object referred to by a member field until an instance is actually required rather than computing the field value or constructing the referenced object in the class's constructor. Lazy initialization helps to break harmful circularities in class and instance initialization. It also enables other optimizations [Bloch 2005].
Lazy initialization uses either a class or an instance method, depending on whether the member object is static. The method checks whether the instance has already been created and, if not, creates it. When the instance already exists, the method simply returns the instance:
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Wiki Markup | ||
The usual way of initializing a sub-object is to use a constructor. Sometimes it is required to limit the number of instances of the sub-object to just one (this is similar to a singleton, however, the sub-object may or may not be {{static}}). In addition, a technique called lazy initialization is used to defer the construction of the sub-object until it is actually required. For these purposes, instead of a constructor, a class or an instance method should be used for initialization, depending on whether the sub-object is {{static}} or not. The method checks whether the instance has already been created and if not, creates it. If the instance already exists, it simply returns it. This is shown below: {code:bgColor=#ccccff} // Correct single threaded version using lazy initialization final class Foo { private Helper helper = null; public Helper getHelper() { if (helper == null) { helper = new Helper(); } return helper; } // ... } {code} In a multi-threading scenario, the initialization must be synchronized so that two or more threads do not create multiple instances of the sub-object. The code shown below is correctly synchronized, albeit slower than the previous, single threaded code example. {code:bgColor=#ccccff} // Correct multithreaded version using synchronization class Foo { private Helper helper = null; public synchronized Helper getHelper() { if (helper == null) { helper = new Helper(); } return helper; } // Other functions and members... } {code} The double checked locking (DCL) idiom is sometimes used to provide lazy initialization in multithreaded code. In a multi-threading scenario, lazy initialization is supplemented by reducing the cost of synchronization on each method access by limiting the synchronization to the case where the instance is to be created and forgoing it when retrieving an already created instance. The double-checked locking pattern eliminates method synchronization and uses block synchronization. It strives to make the previous code example faster by installing a {{null}} check before attempting to synchronize. This makes expensive synchronization dispensable for the common case of retrieving the value. The noncompliant code example shows the originally proposed DCL pattern. According to the Java Memory Model (discussion reference) \[[Pugh 04|AA. Java References#Pugh 04]\]: {quote} ... writes that initialize the {{Helper}} object and the write to the {{helper}} field can be done or perceived out of order. As a result, a thread which invokes {{getHelper()}} could see a non-null reference to a {{helper}} object, but see the default values for fields of the {{helper}} object, rather than the values set in the constructor. Even if the compiler does not reorder those writes, on a multiprocessor the processor or the memory system may reorder those writes, as perceived by a thread running on another processor. {quote} This makes the originally proposed double-checked locking pattern insecure. h2. Noncompliant Code Example This noncompliant code example uses the incorrect form of the double checked locking idiom. {code:bgColor=#FFCCCC} // "Double-Checked Locking" idiom class Foo { private |
Lazy initialization must be synchronized in multithreaded applications to prevent multiple threads from creating extraneous instances of the member object:
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
// Correct multithreaded version using synchronization
final class Foo {
private Helper helper = null;
public synchronized Helper getHelper() {
if (helper == null) {
helper = new Helper();
}
return helper;
}
// ...
}
|
Noncompliant Code Example
The double-checked locking pattern uses block synchronization rather than method synchronization and installs an additional null reference check before attempting synchronization. This noncompliant code example uses an incorrect form of the double-checked locking idiom:
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
// Double-checked locking idiom
final class Foo {
private Helper helper = null;
public Helper getHelper() {
if (helper == null) {
synchronized (this) {
if (helper == null) {
helper = new Helper();
}
}
}
return helper;
}
// Other methods and members...
}
|
According to Pugh [Pugh 2004],
Writes that initialize the
Helper
object and the write to thehelper
field can be done or perceived out of order. As a result, a thread which invokesgetHelper()
could see a non-null reference to ahelper
object, but see the default values for fields of thehelper
object, rather than the values set in the constructor.Even if the compiler does not reorder those writes, on a multiprocessor, the processor or the memory system may reorder those writes, as perceived by a thread running on another processor.
This code also violates TSM03-J. Do not publish partially initialized objects.
Compliant Solution (Volatile)
This compliant solution declares the helper
field volatile:
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
// Works with acquire/release semantics for volatile // Broken under JDK 1.4 and earlier final class Foo { private volatile Helper helper = null; public Helper getHelper() { if (helper == null) { synchronized (this) { if (helper == null) { helper = new Helper(); } } } return helper; } // other functions and members... } {code} h2. Compliant Solution (volatile) This compliant solution declares the {{Helper}} object as {{volatile}}. {code:bgColor=#ccccff} // Works with acquire/release semantics for volatile // Broken under JDK 1.4 and earlier class Foo { private volatile Helper helper = null; public Helper getHelper() { if (helper == null) { synchronized(this) { if (helper == null)} } |
When a thread initializes the Helper
object, a happens-before relationship is established between this thread and any other thread that retrieves and returns the instance [Pugh 2004], [Manson 2004].
Compliant Solution (Static Initialization)
This compliant solution initializes the helper
field in the declaration of the static variable [Manson 2006].
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
final class Foo {
private static final Helper helper = new Helper();
public static Helper getHelper() {
return helper;
}
}
|
Variables that are declared static and initialized at declaration or from a static initializer are guaranteed to be fully constructed before being made visible to other threads. However, this solution forgoes the benefits of lazy initialization.
Compliant Solution (Initialize-on-Demand, Holder Class Idiom)
This compliant solution uses the initialize-on-demand, holder class idiom that implicitly incorporates lazy initialization by declaring a static variable within a static Holder
inner class:
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
final class Foo { // Lazy initialization private static class Holder { static Helper helper helper = new Helper(); // If the helper is null, create a new instance } public static Helper getInstance() }{ } return Holder.helper; // If helper is non-null, return its instance } } {code} JDK 5.0 allows a write of a {{volatile}} variable to be reordered with respect to a previous read or write. A read of a {{volatile}} variable cannot be reordered with respect to any following read or write. Because of this, the double checked locking idiom can work when {{helper}} is declared {{volatile}}. If a thread initializes the {{Helper}} object, a happens-before relationship is established between this thread and another that retrieves and returns the instance. \[[Pugh 04|AA. Java References#Pugh 04]\] and \[[Manson 04|AA. Java References#Manson 04]\] h2. Compliant Solution (static eager initialization) This compliant solution eagerly initializes the {{helper}} in the declaration of the {{static}} variable \[[Pugh 04|AA. Java References#Pugh 04]\] (sic). {mc} \[[Pugh 04|AA. Java References#Pugh 04]\] lists this as lazy initialization but it is actually eager initialization and so the (sic). {mc} {code:bgColor=#ccccff} class Foo { static final Helper helper = new Helper(); private Helper() { // ... } public static Helper getHelper() { return helper; } } {code} Variables declared {{static}} are guaranteed to be initialized and made visible to other threads immediately. Static initializers also exhibit these properties. h2. Compliant Solution (static lazy initialization) This compliant solution incorporates lazy initialization which makes it more productive. It also uses a {{static}} variable as suggested in the previous compliant solution. The variable is declared within a {{static}} inner, {{Holder}} class. {code:bgColor=#ccccff} class Foo { // Lazy initialization private static class Holder { static Helper helper = new Helper(); } public static Helper getInstance() { return Holder.helper; } } {code} This idiom is called the initialize-on-demand holder class idiom. Initialization of the {{Holder}} class is deferred until the {{getInstance()}} method is called, following which the {{helper}} is initialized. The only limitation of this method is that it works only for {{static}} fields and not instance fields. \[[Bloch 01|AA. Java References#Bloch 01]\] h2. Exceptions *EX1:* Explicitly synchronized code does not require the use of double-checked locking. *EX2:* "Although the double-checked locking idiom cannot be used for references to objects, it can work for 32-bit primitive values (e.g., int's or float's). Note that it does not work for long's or double's, since unsynchronized reads/writes of 64-bit primitives are not guaranteed to be atomic." \[[Pugh 04|AA. Java References#Pugh 04]\] h2. Risk Assessment Using incorrect forms of the double checked locking idiom can lead to synchronization issues. || Rule || Severity || Likelihood || Remediation Cost || Priority || Level || | CON22- 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+CON43-J]. h2. References \[[API 06|AA. Java References#API 06]\] \[[Pugh 04|AA. Java References#Pugh 04]\] \[[Bloch 01|AA. Java References#Bloch 01]\] Item 48: "Synchronize access to shared mutable data" \[[MITRE 09|AA. Java References#MITRE 09]\] [CWE ID 609|http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/609.html] "Double-Checked Locking" ---- [!The CERT Sun Microsystems Secure Coding Standard for Java^button_arrow_left.png!|CON21-J. Facilitate thread reuse by using Thread Pools] [!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!|CON23-J. Address the shortcomings of the Singleton design pattern] } } |
Initialization of the static helper
field is deferred until the getInstance()
method is called. The necessary happens-before relationships are created by the combination of the class loader's actions loading and initializing the Holder
instance and the guarantees provided by the Java memory model (JMM). This idiom is a better choice than the double-checked locking idiom for lazily initializing static fields [Bloch 2008]. However, this idiom cannot be used to lazily initialize instance fields [Bloch 2001].
Compliant Solution (ThreadLocal
Storage)
This compliant solution (originally suggested by Alexander Terekhov [Pugh 2004]) uses a ThreadLocal
object to track whether each individual thread has participated in the synchronization that creates the needed happens-before relationships. Each thread stores a non-null value into its thread-local perThreadInstance
only inside the synchronized createHelper()
method; consequently, any thread that sees a null value must establish the necessary happens-before relationships by invoking createHelper()
.
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
final class Foo {
private final ThreadLocal<Foo> perThreadInstance =
new ThreadLocal<Foo>();
private Helper helper = null;
public Helper getHelper() {
if (perThreadInstance.get() == null) {
createHelper();
}
return helper;
}
private synchronized void createHelper() {
if (helper == null) {
helper = new Helper();
}
// Any non-null value can be used as an argument to set()
perThreadInstance.set(this);
}
}
|
Noncompliant Code Example (Immutable)
In this noncompliant code example, the Helper
class is made immutable by declaring its fields final. The JMM guarantees that immutable objects are fully constructed before they become visible to any other thread. The block synchronization in the getHelper()
method guarantees that all threads that can see a non-null value of the helper field will also see the fully initialized Helper
object.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
public final class Helper {
private final int n;
public Helper(int n) {
this.n = n;
}
// Other fields and methods, all fields are final
}
final class Foo {
private Helper helper = null;
public Helper getHelper() {
if (helper == null) { // First read of helper
synchronized (this) {
if (helper == null) { // Second read of helper
helper = new Helper(42);
}
}
}
return helper; // Third read of helper
}
}
|
However, this code is not guaranteed to succeed on all Java Virtual Machine platforms because there is no happens-before relationship between the first read and third read of helper
. Consequently, it is possible for the third read of helper
to obtain a stale null value (perhaps because its value was cached or reordered by the compiler), causing the getHelper()
method to return a null pointer.
Compliant Solution (Immutable)
This compliant solution uses a local variable to reduce the number of unsynchronized reads of the helper
field to 1. As a result, if the read of helper
yields a non-null value, it is cached in a local variable that is inaccessible to other threads and is safely returned.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
public final class Helper {
private final int n;
public Helper(int n) {
this.n = n;
}
// Other fields and methods, all fields are final
}
final class Foo {
private Helper helper = null;
public Helper getHelper() {
Helper h = helper; // Only unsynchronized read of helper
if (h == null) {
synchronized (this) {
h = helper; // In synchronized block, so this is safe
if (h == null) {
h = new Helper(42);
helper = h;
}
}
}
return h;
}
}
|
Exceptions
LCK10-J-EX0: Use of the noncompliant form of the double-checked locking idiom is permitted for 32-bit primitive values (for example, int
or float
) [Pugh 2004], although this usage is discouraged. The noncompliant form establishes the necessary happens-before relationship between threads that see an initialized version of the primitive value. The second happens-before relationship (for the initialization of the fields of the referent) is of no practical value because unsynchronized reads and writes of primitive values up to 32-bits are guaranteed to be atomic. Consequently, the noncompliant form establishes the only needed happens-before relationship in this case. Note, however, that the noncompliant form fails for long
and double
because unsynchronized reads or writes of 64-bit primitives lack a guarantee of atomicity and consequently require a second happens-before relationship to guarantee that all threads see only fully assigned 64-bit values (see VNA05-J. Ensure atomicity when reading and writing 64-bit values for more information).
Risk Assessment
Using incorrect forms of the double-checked locking idiom can lead to synchronization problems and can expose partially initialized objects.
Rule | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
LCK10-J | Low | Probable | Medium | P4 | L3 |
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CodeSonar |
| JAVA.CONCURRENCY.LOCK.DCL | Double-Checked Locking (Java) | ||||||
Coverity | 7.5 | DOUBLE_CHECK_LOCK | Implemented | ||||||
Parasoft Jtest |
| CERT.LCK10.DCL | Avoid unsafe implementations of the "double-checked locking" pattern | ||||||
PVS-Studio |
| V5304, V6082 | |||||||
SonarQube |
| S2168 |
Related Guidelines
Bibliography
[API 2014] | |
Item 48, "Synchronize Access to Shared Mutable Data" | |
Item 71, "Use Lazy Initialization Judiciously" | |
[JLS 2015] | |
[Manson 2004] | JSR 133 (Java Memory Model) FAQ |
[Manson 2006] | |
[Manson 2008] | Data-Race-ful Lazy Initialization for Performance |
[Shipilёv 2014] |
...