Bounded thread pools allow the programmer to specify an upper limit on the number of threads that can concurrently execute in a thread pool. Programs must not use threads from a bounded thread pool to execute tasks that depend on the completion of other tasks in the pool.
A form of deadlock called thread-starvation deadlock arises when all the threads executing in the pool are blocked on tasks that are waiting on an internal queue for an available thread in which to execute. Thread-starvation deadlock occurs when currently executing tasks submit other tasks to a thread pool and wait for them to complete and the thread pool lacks the capacity to accommodate all the tasks at once.
This problem can be confusing because the program can function correctly when fewer threads are needed. The issue can be mitigated, in some cases, by choosing a larger pool size. However, determining a suitable size may be difficult or even impossible.
Similarly, threads in a thread pool may fail to be recycled when two executing tasks each require the other to complete before they can terminate. A blocking operation within a subtask can also lead to unbounded queue growth [Goetz 2006].
Noncompliant Code Example (Interdependent Subtasks)
This noncompliant code example is vulnerable to thread-starvation deadlock. It consists of the ValidationService
class, which performs various input validation tasks such as checking whether a user-supplied field exists in a back-end database.
The fieldAggregator()
method accepts a variable number of String
arguments and creates a task corresponding to each argument to enable concurrent processing. The task performs input validation using the ValidateInput
class.
In turn, the ValidateInput
class attempts to sanitize the input by creating a subtask for each request using the SanitizeInput
class. All tasks are executed in the same thread pool. The fieldAggregator()
method blocks until all the tasks have finished executing and, when all results are available, returns the aggregated results as a StringBuilder
object to the caller.
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
public final | ||
Wiki Markup | ||
There are certain problems associated with the incorrect use of the {{Executor}} interface. For instance, tasks that depend on other tasks should not execute in the same thread pool. A task that submits another task to a single threaded {{Executor}} remains blocked until the results are received whereas the second task may have dependencies on the first task. This constitutes a deadlock. h2. Noncompliant Code Example This noncompliant code example suffers from a _thread starvation deadlock_ issue. It consists of class {{ValidationService}} that performs various input validation tasks such as checking whether a specific user-supplied field exists in a back-end database. The {{fieldAggregator()}} method accepts a variable number of {{String}} arguments and creates a task corresponding to each argument to gain some speedup. The task performs input validation using class {{ValidateInput}}. The class {{ValidateInput}} in turn, creates a task for each request using class {{SanitizeInput}}. All tasks are executed using the same thread pool. The method {{fieldAggregator()}} blocks until all the tasks have finished executing. When all results are available, it aggregates the processed inputs as a {{StringBuffer}} that can be used by its caller. {code:bgColor=#FFCCCC} class ValidationService { private final ExecutorService pool; public ValidationService(int poolSize) { pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(poolSize); } public void shutdown() { pool.shutdown(); } public StringBufferStringBuilder fieldAggregator(String... inputs) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException { StringBufferStringBuilder sb = new StringBufferStringBuilder(); // Stores the results Future<String>[] results = new Future[inputs.length]; // storesSubmits the results tasks to thread pool for (int i = 0; i < inputs.length; i++) { results[i] = pool.submit( new ValidateInput<String>(inputs[i], pool)); } for (int i = 0; i < inputs.length; i++) { // AggregateAggregates the results sb.append(results[i].get()); } return sb; } } public final class ValidateInput<V> implements Callable<V> { private final StringV input; private final ExecutorService pool; ValidateInput(StringV input, ExecutorService pool) { this.input = input; this.pool = pool; } @Override public V call() throws Exception { // If validation fails, throw an exception here // Subtask Future<String>Future<V> future = pool.submit(new SanitizeInput<String>SanitizeInput<V>(input)); return (V) future.get(); } } public final class SanitizeInput<V> implements Callable<V> { private final StringV input; SanitizeInput(StringV input) { this.input = input; } @Override public V call() throws Exception { // Sanitize input and return return (V) input; } } {code} {mc} // Hidden main() method public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException { ValidationService vs = new ValidationService(5); System.out.println(vs.fieldAggregator("field1", "field2","field3","field4", "field5","field6")); vs.shutdown(); } {mc} Assume that the caller sets the thread pool size as 6. When a caller calls {{ValidationService.fieldAggregator()}} with six arguments that ought to be validated, six tasks are submitted to the thread pool. However, six more tasks corresponding to {{SanitizeInput}} must also execute before these threads can return their results. However, this is not possible because the queue is full with all threads blocked. Choosing a bigger pool size appears to solve the problem, however there is no easy way to determine a suitable size. This situation can also occur when using single threaded Executors when the caller creates several sub-tasks and wait for the results. A thread starvation deadlock arises when all the threads executing in the pool are blocked on tasks that are waiting on the queue. A blocking operation within a subtask can also lead to unbounded queue growth. \[[Goetz 06|AA. Java References#Goetz 06]\] h2. Compliant Solution {code:bgColor=#ccccff} TODO {code} Always try to submit independent tasks to the {{Executor}}. Thread starvation issues can be mitigated by choosing a large pool size. Note that operations that have further constraints, such as the total number of database connections or total {{ResultSets}} open at a particular time, impose an upper bound on the thread pool size as each thread continues to block until the resource becomes available. The other rules of fair concurrency, such as not running time consuming tasks, also apply. When this is not possible, expecting to obtain real time result guarantees from the execution of tasks is conceivably, an unreasonable target. Sometimes, a {{private static}} {{ThreadLocal}} variable is used per thread to maintain local state. When using thread pools, {{ThreadLocal}} variable should be used only if their lifetime is shorter than that of the corresponding task \[[Goetz 06|AA. Java References#Goetz 06]\]. Moreover, such variables should not be used as a communication mechanism between tasks. h2. Noncompliant Code Example This noncompliant code example (based on \[[Gafter 06|AA. Java References#Gafter 06]\]) shows a {{BrowserManager}} class that has several methods that use a fork-join mechanism, that is, they start threads and wait for them to finish. The methods are called in the sequence {{perUser()}}, {{perProfile}} and {{perTab()}}. The method {{methodInvoker}} spawns several instances of the specified runnable depending on the value of the variable {{numberOfTimes}}. A fixed sized thread pool is used to execute the enumerated threads generated at different levels. {code:bgColor=#FFCCCC} public class BrowserManager { private final ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10); int numberOfTimes; private static volatile int count = 0; public BrowserManager(int n) { this.numberOfTimes = n |
Assume, for example, that the pool size is set to 6. The ValidationService.fieldAggregator()
method is invoked to validate six arguments; consequently, it submits six tasks to the thread pool. Each task submits a corresponding subtask to sanitize the input. The SanitizeInput
subtasks must execute before the original six tasks can return their results. However, this is impossible because all six threads in the thread pool are blocked. Furthermore, the shutdown()
method cannot shut down the thread pool when it contains active tasks.
Thread-starvation deadlock can also occur when a single-threaded Executor
is used, for example, when the caller creates several subtasks and waits for the results.
Compliant Solution (No Interdependent Tasks)
This compliant solution modifies the ValidateInput<V>
class so that the SanitizeInput
tasks are executed in the same threads as the ValidateInput
tasks rather than in separate threads. Consequently, the ValidateInput
and SanitizeInput
tasks are independent, which eliminates their need to wait for each other to complete. The SanitizeInput
class has also been modified to omit implementation of the Callable
interface.
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
public final class ValidationService {
// ...
public StringBuilder fieldAggregator(String... inputs)
throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
// ...
for (int i = 0; i < inputs.length; i++) {
// Don't pass-in thread pool
results[i] = pool.submit(new ValidateInput<String>(inputs[i]));
}
// ...
}
}
// Does not use same thread pool
public final class ValidateInput<V> implements Callable<V> {
private final V input;
ValidateInput(V input) {
this.input = input;
}
@Override public V call() throws Exception {
// If validation fails, throw an exception here
return (V) new SanitizeInput().sanitize(input);
}
}
public final class SanitizeInput<V> { // No longer a Callable task
public SanitizeInput() {}
public V sanitize(V input) {
// Sanitize input and return
return input;
}
}
|
Thread-starvation issues can be partially mitigated by choosing a large thread pool size. However, an untrusted caller can still overwhelm the system by supplying more inputs (see TPS00-J. Use thread pools to enable graceful degradation of service during traffic bursts).
Note that operations that have further constraints, such as the total number of database connections or total ResultSet
objects open at a particular time, impose an upper bound on the usable thread pool size, as each thread continues to block until the resource becomes available.
Private static ThreadLocal
variables may be used to maintain local state in each thread. When using thread pools, the lifetime of ThreadLocal
variables should be bounded by the corresponding task [Goetz 2006]. Furthermore, programs must not use these variables to communicate between tasks. There are additional constraints in the use of ThreadLocal
variables in thread pools (see TPS04-J. Ensure ThreadLocal variables are reinitialized when using thread pools for more information).
Noncompliant Code Example (Subtasks)
This noncompliant code example contains a series of subtasks that execute in a shared thread pool [Gafter 2006]. The BrowserManager
class calls perUser()
, which starts tasks that invoke perProfile()
. The perProfile()
method starts tasks that invoke perTab()
, and in turn, perTab
starts tasks that invoke doSomething()
. BrowserManager
then waits for the tasks to finish. The threads are allowed to invoke doSomething()
in any order, provided that count
correctly records the number of methods executed.
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
public final class BrowserManager { private final ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10); private final int numberOfTimes; private static AtomicInteger count = new AtomicInteger(); // count = 0 public BrowserManager(int n) { numberOfTimes = n; } public void perUser() { methodInvoker(numberOfTimes, "perProfile"); pool.shutdown(); } public void perProfile() { methodInvoker(numberOfTimes, "perTab"); } public void perUserperTab() { methodInvoker(numberOfTimes, "perProfiledoSomething"); pool.shutdown(); } public void perProfiledoSomething() { methodInvoker(numberOfTimes, "perTab"); System.out.println(count.getAndIncrement()); } public void perTab(methodInvoker(int n, final String method) { final methodInvoker(numberOfTimes, "doSomething")BrowserManager manager = this; } publicCallable<Object> voidcallable doSomething() = new Callable<Object>() { System.out.println(++count); } @Override public voidObject methodInvokercall(int n, final String method) { ) throws Exception { final BrowserManagerMethod fmmeth = thismanager.getClass().getMethod(method); Runnable run = newreturn Runnablemeth.invoke(manager); { } public void run() { try { }; Method meth = fm.getClass().getMethod(method); meth.invoke(fm); Collection<Callable<Object>> collection = } catch (Throwable t) { // Forward to exception reporterCollections.nCopies(n, callable); try { Collection<Future<Object>> } futures = pool.invokeAll(collection); } catch (InterruptedException e) }{ }; // Forward to handler Collection<Callable<Object>> c = new ArrayList<Callable<Object>> Thread.currentThread().interrupt(); // Reset interrupted for(int i=0;i < n; i++) {status } // c..add(Executors.callable(run)); } public static Collection<Future<Object>> futures = null; try void main(String[] args) { BrowserManager manager futures= =new pool.invokeAllBrowserManager(c5); } catch (InterruptedException e) { // Forward to handler } // ... } public static void main(String[] args) { BrowserManager manager = new BrowserManager(5); manager.perUser(); } } {code} Contrary to what is expected, this program does not print the total count, that is, the number of times {{doSomething()}} is invoked. This is because it is susceptible to a thread starvation deadlock because the size of the thread pool (10) does not allow either thread from {{perTab()}} to invoke the {{doSomething()}} method. The output of the program varies for different values of {{numberOfTimes}} and the thread pool size. Note that different threads are allowed to invoke {{doSomething()}} in different order; we are concerned only with the maximum value of {{count}} to determine how many times the method executed. h2. Compliant Solution This compliant solution selects tasks for scheduling and avoids the thread starvation deadlock. Every level (worker) must have a double ended queue where all sub-tasks are queued. Each level removes the most recently generated sub-task from the queue so that it can process it. When there are no more threads left to process, the current level runs the least-recently created sub-task of another level by picking and removing it from that level's queue. This compliant solution sets the {{CallerRuns}} policy on a {{ThreadPoolExecutor}}, and uses a synchronous queue \[[Gafter 06|AA. Java References#Gafter 06]\]. {code:bgColor=#ccccff} public class BrowserManager { static ThreadPoolExecutor pool = new ThreadPoolExecutor(0, 10, 60L, TimeUnit.SECONDS, new SynchronousQueue<Runnable>()); int numberOfTimes; private static volatile int count = 0; static { pool.setRejectedExecutionHandler( new ThreadPoolExecutor.CallerRunsPolicy()); } // ... } {code} According to the Java API, class {{java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.CallerRunsPolicy}} documentation: {quote} A handler for rejected tasks that runs the rejected task directly in the calling thread of the {{execute}} method, unless the executor has been shut down, in which case the task is discarded. {quote} This compliant solution is subject to the vagaries of the thread scheduler which may not optimally schedule the tasks, however, it avoids the thread starvation deadlock. h2. Risk Assessment Executing interdependent tasks in a thread pool can lead to denial of service. || Rule || Severity || Likelihood || Remediation Cost || Priority || Level || | CON29- 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+FIO38-J]. h2. References \[[API 06|AA. Java References#API 06]\] \[[Gafter 06|AA. Java References#Gafter 06]\] [A Thread Pool Puzzler|http://gafter.blogspot.com/2006/11/thread-pool-puzzler.html] ---- [!The CERT Sun Microsystems Secure Coding Standard for Java^button_arrow_left.png!|FIO36-J. Do not create multiple buffered wrappers on an InputStream] [!The CERT Sun Microsystems Secure Coding Standard for Java^button_arrow_up.png!|09. Input Output (FIO)] [!The CERT Sun Microsystems Secure Coding Standard for Java^button_arrow_right.png!|09. Input Output (FIO)]manager.perUser(); } } |
Unfortunately, this program is susceptible to a thread-starvation deadlock. For example, if each of the five perUser
tasks spawns five perProfile
tasks, where each perProfile
task spawns a perTab
task, the thread pool will be exhausted, and perTab()
will be unable to allocate any additional threads to invoke the doSomething()
method.
Compliant Solution (CallerRunsPolicy
)
This compliant solution selects and schedules tasks for execution, avoiding thread-starvation deadlock. It sets the CallerRunsPolicy
on a ThreadPoolExecutor
and uses a SynchronousQueue
[Gafter 2006]. The policy dictates that when the thread pool runs out of available threads, any subsequent tasks will run in the thread that submitted the tasks.
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
public final class BrowserManager {
private final static ThreadPoolExecutor pool =
new ThreadPoolExecutor(0, 10, 60L, TimeUnit.SECONDS,
new SynchronousQueue<Runnable>());
private final int numberOfTimes;
private static AtomicInteger count = new AtomicInteger(); // count = 0
static {
pool.setRejectedExecutionHandler(
new ThreadPoolExecutor.CallerRunsPolicy());
}
// ...
}
|
According to Goetz and colleagues [Goetz 2006]:
A
SynchronousQueue
is not really a queue at all, but a mechanism for managing handoffs between threads. In order to put an element on theSynchronousQueue
, another thread must already be waiting to accept the handoff. If no thread is waiting, but the current pool size is less than the maximum,ThreadPoolExecutor
creates a new thread; otherwise, the task is rejected according to the saturation policy.
According to the Java API [API 2014], the CallerRunsPolicy
class is
a handler for rejected tasks that runs the rejected task directly in the calling thread of the
execute
method, unless the executor has been shut down, in which case, the task is discarded.
In this compliant solution, tasks that have other tasks waiting to accept the hand-off are added to the SynchronousQueue
when the thread pool is full. For example, tasks corresponding to perTab()
are added to the SynchronousQueue
because the tasks corresponding to perProfile()
are waiting to receive the hand-off. Once the pool is full, additional tasks are rejected according to the saturation policy in effect. Because the CallerRunsPolicy
is used to handle these rejected tasks, all the rejected tasks are executed in the main thread that started the initial tasks. When all the threads corresponding to perTab()
have finished executing, the next set of tasks corresponding to perProfile()
are added to the SynchronousQueue
because the hand-off is subsequently used by perUser()
tasks.
The CallerRunsPolicy
allows graceful degradation of service when faced with many requests by distributing the workload from the thread pool to the work queue. Because the submitted tasks cannot block for any reason other than waiting for other tasks to complete, the policy guarantees that the current thread can handle multiple tasks sequentially. The policy would fail to prevent thread-starvation deadlock if the tasks were to block for some other reason, such as network I/O. Furthermore, this approach avoids unbounded queue growth because SynchronousQueue
avoids storing tasks indefinitely for future execution, and all tasks are handled either by the current thread or by a thread in the thread pool.
This compliant solution is subject to the vagaries of the thread scheduler, which might schedule the tasks suboptimally. However, it avoids thread-starvation deadlock.
Risk Assessment
Executing interdependent tasks in a thread pool can lead to denial of service.
Rule | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TPS01-J | Low | Probable | Medium | P4 | L3 |
Bibliography
[API 2014] | |
Section 5.3.3, "Dequeues and Work Stealing" |
...