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 | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
// Correct single threaded version using lazy initialization
final class Foo {
private Helper helper = null;
public Helper getHelper() {
if (helper == null) {
| ||
Wiki Markup | ||
Instead of initializing a member object using a constructor, sometimes a technique called lazy initialization is used to defer the construction of the member object until an instance is actually required. Lazy initialization also helps in breaking harmful circularities in class and instance initialization, and performing other optimizations \[[Bloch 05|AA. Java References#Bloch 05]\]. A class or an instance method is used for lazy initialization, depending on whether the member 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 multithreading scenario, the initialization must be synchronized so that two or more threads do not create multiple instances of the member object. The code shown below is safe for execution in a multithreaded environment, albeit slower than the previous, single threaded code example. {code:bgColor=#ccccff} // Correct multithreaded version using synchronization final class Foo { private Helper helper = null; public synchronized Helper getHelper() { if (helper == null) { helper = new Helper(); } return helper; } // ... } {code} The double checked locking (DCL) idiom is used to provide lazy initialization in multithreaded code. In a multithreading scenario, traditional lazy initialization is supplemented by reducing the cost of synchronization for each method access by limiting the synchronization to the case where the instance is required to be created and forgoing it when retrieving an already created instance. The double-checked locking pattern uses block synchronization instead of method synchronization. It strives to make the previous code example faster by installing a {{null}} check before attempting to synchronize. This makes expensive synchronization necessary only for initialization, and dispensable for the common case of retrieving the value of {{helper}}. The noncompliant code example shows the originally proposed DCL pattern. 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 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... } {code} 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. The guideline [CON26-J. Do not publish partially initialized objects] further discusses the possibility of a non-null reference that refers to a partially initialized object. h2. Compliant Solution ({{volatile}}) This compliant solution declares the {{Helper}} object as {{volatile}} and consequently, uses the correct form of the double-checked locking idiom. {code:bgColor=#ccccff} // 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(); // If the helper is null, create a new instance } } } return helper; // If helper is non-null, return its instance } } {code} If a thread initializes the {{Helper}} object, a [happens-before relationship|BB. Definitions#happens-before order] is established between this thread and another that retrieves and returns the instance. \[[Pugh 04|AA. Java References#Pugh 04]\] and \[[Manson 04|AA. Java References#Manson 04]\] "Today, the double-check idiom is the technique of choice for lazily initializing an instance field. While you can apply the double-check idiom to {{static}} fields as well, there is no reason to do so: the lazy initialization holder class idiom is a better choice." \[[Bloch 08|AA. Java References#Bloch 08]\]. h2. Compliant Solution (static initialization) This compliant solution initializes the {{helper}} field in the declaration of the {{static}} variable \[[Manson 06|AA. Java References#Manson 06]\]. {code:bgColor=#ccccff} final class Foo { private static final Helper helper = new Helper(); public static Helper getHelper() {} return helper; } } {code} 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. This approach should not be confused with eager initialization because in this case, the Java Language Specification guarantees lazy initialization of the class when it is first used \[[JLS 05|AA. Java References#JLS 05]\]. h2. Compliant Solution (initialize-on-demand holder class idiom) This compliant solution uses the initialize-on-demand holder class idiom that implicitly incorporates lazy initialization. It uses a {{static}} variable as suggested in the previous compliant solution and declares it within a {{static}} inner class, {{Holder}}. {code:bgColor=#ccccff} final class Foo { // Lazy initialization private static class Holder { static Helper helper = new Helper(); } public static Helper getInstance() { return Holder.helper; } } {code} Initialization of the {{Holder}} class is deferred until the {{getInstance()}} method is called, following which the {{helper}} field is initialized. The only limitation of this method is that it works only for {{static}} fields and not for instance fields \[[Bloch 01|AA. Java References#Bloch 01]\]. This idiom is a better choice than the double checked locking idiom for lazily initializing {{static}} fields \[[Bloch 08|AA. Java References#Bloch 08]\]. h2. Compliant Solution ({{ThreadLocal}} storage) This compliant solution (originally suggested by Alexander Terekhov \[[Pugh 04|AA. Java References#Pugh 04]\]) uses a {{ThreadLocal}} object to lazily create a {{Helper}} instance. {code:bgColor=#ccccff} class Foo { // If perThreadInstance.get() returns a non-null value, this thread // has done synchronization needed to see initialization of helper private final ThreadLocal perThreadInstance = new ThreadLocal(); private Helper helper = null; public Helper getHelper() { if (perThreadInstance.get() == null) { createHelper();// ... } |
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; } private final void createHelper() { 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 // Any non-null value would do as the argument heregetHelper() { perThreadInstance.set(perThreadInstance); }return helper; } } {code} } |
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 = new Helper();
}
public static Helper getInstance() {
return Holder.helper;
}
}
|
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 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
h2. Compliant Solution ({{java.util.concurrent}} utilities) This compliant solution uses an {{AtomicReference}} wrapper around the {{Helper}} object. It uses the standard {{compareAndSet}} (CAS) functionality to set a newly created {{Helper}} object if {{helperRef}} is {{null}}. Otherwise, it simply returns the already created instance. (Tom Hawtin, [JMM Mailing List|https://mailman.cs.umd.edu/mailman/private/javamemorymodel-discussion/2006-December/000067.html]) {code:bgColor=#ccccff} // Uses atomic utilities final class Foo { private final AtomicReference<Helper> helperRef = new AtomicReference<Helper>(); public Helper getHelper() { Helper helper = helperRef.get(); if (helper != null) { return helper; } Helper newHelper = new Helper(); return helperRef.compareAndSet(null, newHelper) ? newHelper : helperRef.get(); } } {code} While this code ensures that only one {{Helper}} object is prevented from being garbage collected, it allows multiple {{Helper}} objects to be created. If constructing multiple {{Helper}} objects is infeasible or expensive, this solution may be inappropriate. {mc} Ok, so this won't work with weak refs because the refs are still strong. Even if not, helper may be mistakenly assigned null. ~DM For example, if there is only a limited amount of memory available, this approach may cause an {{OutOfMemoryError}} unless a weak reference is used to hold {{Helper}}. {mc} h2. Compliant Solution ({{immutable}}) In this compliant solution the {{Foo}} class is unchanged, but the {{Helper}} class is made [immutable|BB. Definitions#immutable]. Consequently, the {{Helper}} class is guaranteed to be fully constructed before becoming visible. The object must be truly immutable; it is not sufficient for the program to refrain from modifying the object. {code:bgColor=#CCCCFF} 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 = new Helper(); // If the helper is null, createhelper a= new instanceHelper(42); } } } return helper; // If helper is non-null, return its instance } } {code} Note that if class {{Foo}} were mutable, the {{Helper}} field would need to be// declared {{volatile}} as recommended in [CON09-J. Ensure visibility of shared references to immutable objects]. Also, the {{getHelper()}} method is an instance method and the accessibility of the {{helper}} field is {{private}}. This allows safe publication of the {{Helper}} object, in that, a thread cannot observe a partially initialized {{Foo}} object ([CON26-J. Do not publish partially initialized objects]). The class {{Helper}} is also compliant with [CON26-J. Do not publish partially initialized objects] and consequently, cannot be observed to be in a partially initialized state. h2. Exceptions *EX1:* Explicitly synchronized code (that uses method synchronization or proper block synchronization, enclosing all initialization statements) does not require the use of double-checked locking. *EX2:* "Although the \[noncompliant form of the\] 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." \[[Pugh 04|AA. Java References#Pugh 04]\]. (See [CON25-J. Ensure atomicity when reading and writing 64-bit values] for more information.) 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 \[[API 06|AA. Java References#API 06]\] \[[JLS 05|AA. Java References#JLS 05]\] 12.4 "Initialization of Classes and Interfaces" \[[Pugh 04|AA. Java References#Pugh 04]\] \[[Bloch 01|AA. Java References#Bloch 01]\] Item 48: "Synchronize access to shared mutable data" \[[Bloch 08|AA. Java References#Bloch 08]\] Item 71: "Use lazy initialization judiciously" \[[MITRE 09|AA. Java References#MITRE 09]\] [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. Use thread pools to enable graceful degradation of service during traffic bursts] [!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] 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] |
...