VNA02-J. Ensure that compound operations on shared variables are atomic

Compound operations are operations that consist of more than one discrete operation. Expressions that include postfix or prefix increment (++), postfix or prefix decrement (--), or compound assignment operators always result in compound operations. Compound assignment expressions use operators such as *=, /=, %=, +=, -=, <<=, >>=, >>>=, ^= and |= [JLS 2015]. Compound operations on shared variables must be performed atomically to prevent data races and race conditions.

For information about the atomicity of a grouping of calls to independently atomic methods that belong to thread-safe classes, see VNA03-J. Do not assume that a group of calls to independently atomic methods is atomic.

The Java Language Specification also permits reads and writes of 64-bit values to be non-atomic (see rule VNA05-J. Ensure atomicity when reading and writing 64-bit values).

Noncompliant Code Example (Logical Negation)

This noncompliant code example declares a shared boolean flag variable and provides a toggle() method that negates the current value of flag:

final class Flag {
  private boolean flag = true;

  public void toggle() {  // Unsafe
    flag = !flag;
  }

  public boolean getFlag() { // Unsafe
    return flag;
  }
}

Execution of this code may result in a data race because the value of flag is read, negated, and written back.

Consider, for example, two threads that call toggle(). The expected effect of toggling flag twice is that it is restored to its original value. However, the following scenario leaves flag in the incorrect state:

Time	flag=	Thread	Action
1	true	t₁	Reads the current value of `flag`, true, into a temporary variable
2	true	t₂	Reads the current value of `flag`, (still) true, into a temporary variable
3	true	t₁	Toggles the temporary variable to false
4	true	t₂	Toggles the temporary variable to false
5	false	t₁	Writes the temporary variable's value to `flag`
6	false	t₂	Writes the temporary variable's value to `flag`

As a result, the effect of the call by t₂ is not reflected in flag; the program behaves as if toggle() was called only once, not twice.

Noncompliant Code Example (Bitwise Negation)

The toggle() method may also use the compound assignment operator ^= to negate the current value of flag:

final class Flag {
  private boolean flag = true;

  public void toggle() {  // Unsafe
    flag ^= true;  // Same as flag = !flag;
  }

  public boolean getFlag() { // Unsafe
    return flag;
  }
}

This code is also not thread-safe. A data race exists because ^= is a non-atomic compound operation.

Noncompliant Code Example (Volatile)

Declaring flag volatile also fails to solve the problem:

final class Flag {
  private volatile boolean flag = true;

  public void toggle() {  // Unsafe
    flag ^= true;
  }

  public boolean getFlag() { // Safe
    return flag;
  }
}

This code remains unsuitable for multithreaded use because declaring a variable volatile fails to guarantee the atomicity of compound operations on the variable.

Compliant Solution (Synchronization)

This compliant solution declares both the toggle() and getFlag() methods as synchronized:

final class Flag {
  private boolean flag = true;

  public synchronized void toggle() {
    flag ^= true; // Same as flag = !flag;
  }

  public synchronized boolean getFlag() {
    return flag;
  }
}

This solution guards reads and writes to the flag field with a lock on the instance, that is, this. Furthermore, synchronization ensures that changes are visible to all threads. Now, only two execution orders are possible, one of which is shown in the following scenario:

Time	flag=	Thread	Action
1	true	t₁	Reads the current value of `flag`, true, into a temporary variable
2	true	t₁	Toggles the temporary variable to false
3	false	t₁	Writes the temporary variable's value to `flag`
4	false	t₂	Reads the current value of `flag`, false, into a temporary variable
5	false	t₂	Toggles the temporary variable to true
6	true	t₂	Writes the temporary variable's value to `flag`

The second execution order involves the same operations, but t₂ starts and finishes before t₁.
Compliance with LCK00-J. Use private final lock objects to synchronize classes that may interact with untrusted code can reduce the likelihood of misuse by ensuring that untrusted callers cannot access the lock object.

Compliant Solution (Volatile-Read, Synchronized-Write)

In this compliant solution, the getFlag() method is not synchronized, and flag is declared as volatile. This solution is compliant because the read of flag in the getFlag() method is an atomic operation and the volatile qualification assures visibility. The toggle() method still requires synchronization because it performs a non-atomic operation.

final class Flag {
  private volatile boolean flag = true;

  public synchronized void toggle() {
    flag ^= true; // Same as flag = !flag;
  }

  public boolean getFlag() {
    return flag;
  }
}

This approach must not be used for getter methods that perform any additional operations other than returning the value of a volatile field without use of synchronization. Unless read performance is critical, this technique may lack significant advantages over synchronization [Goetz 2006].

Compliant Solution (Read-Write Lock)

This compliant solution uses a read-write lock to ensure atomicity and visibility:

final class Flag {
  private boolean flag = true;
  private final ReadWriteLock lock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();
  private final Lock readLock = lock.readLock();
  private final Lock writeLock = lock.writeLock();

  public void toggle() {
    writeLock.lock();
    try {
      flag ^= true; // Same as flag = !flag;
    } finally {
      writeLock.unlock();
    }
  }

  public boolean getFlag() {
    readLock.lock();
    try {
      return flag;
    } finally {
      readLock.unlock();
    }
  }
}

Read-write locks allow shared state to be accessed by multiple readers or a single writer but never both. According to Goetz [Goetz 2006]:

In practice, read-write locks can improve performance for frequently accessed read-mostly data structures on multiprocessor systems; under other conditions they perform slightly worse than exclusive locks due to their greater complexity.

Profiling the application can determine the suitability of read-write locks.

Compliant Solution (`AtomicBoolean`)

This compliant solution declares flag to be of type AtomicBoolean:

import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicBoolean;

final class Flag {
  private AtomicBoolean flag = new AtomicBoolean(true);

  public void toggle() {
    boolean temp;
    do {
      temp = flag.get();
    } while (!flag.compareAndSet(temp, !temp));
  }

  public AtomicBoolean getFlag() {
    return flag;
  }
}

The flag variable is updated using the compareAndSet() method of the AtomicBoolean class. All updates are visible to other threads.

Noncompliant Code Example (Addition of Primitives)

In this noncompliant code example, multiple threads can invoke the setValues() method to set the a and b fields. Because this class fails to test for integer overflow, users of the Adder class must ensure that the arguments to the setValues() method can be added without overflow (see NUM00-J. Detect or prevent integer overflow for more information).

final class Adder {
  private int a;
  private int b;

  public int getSum() {
    return a + b;
  }

  public void setValues(int a, int b) {
    this.a = a;
    this.b = b;
  }
}

The getSum() method contains a race condition. For example, when a and b currently have the values 0 and Integer.MAX_VALUE, respectively, and one thread calls getSum() while another calls setValues(Integer.MAX_VALUE, 0), the getSum() method might return either 0 or Integer.MAX_VALUE, or it might overflow. Overflow will occur when the first thread reads a and b after the second thread has set the value of a to Integer.MAX_VALUE but before it has set the value of b to 0.

Note that declaring the variables as volatile fails to resolve the issue because these compound operations involve reads and writes of multiple variables.

Noncompliant Code Example (Addition of Atomic Integers)

In this noncompliant code example, a and b are replaced with atomic integers:

final class Adder {
  private final AtomicInteger a = new AtomicInteger();
  private final AtomicInteger b = new AtomicInteger();

  public int getSum() {
    return a.get() + b.get();
  }

  public void setValues(int a, int b) {
    this.a.set(a);
    this.b.set(b);
  }
}

The simple replacement of the two int fields with atomic integers fails to eliminate the race condition because the compound operation a.get() + b.get() is still non-atomic.

Compliant Solution (Addition)

This compliant solution synchronizes the setValues() and getSum() methods to ensure atomicity:

final class Adder {
  private int a;
  private int b;

  public synchronized int getSum() {
    // Check for overflow 
    return a + b;
  }

  public synchronized void setValues(int a, int b) {
    this.a = a;
    this.b = b;
  }
}

The operations within the synchronized methods are now atomic with respect to other synchronized methods that lock on that object's monitor (that is, its intrinsic lock). It is now possible, for example, to add overflow checking to the synchronized getSum() method without introducing the possibility of a race condition.

Risk Assessment

When operations on shared variables are not atomic, unexpected results can be produced. For example, information can be disclosed inadvertently because one user can receive information about other users.

Rule	Severity	Likelihood	Remediation Cost	Priority	Level
VNA02-J	Medium	Probable	Medium	P8	L2

Automated Detection

Some available static analysis tools can detect the instances of non-atomic update of a concurrently shared value. The result of the update is determined by the interleaving of thread execution. These tools can detect the instances where thread-shared data is accessed without holding an appropriate lock, possibly causing a race condition.

Tool	Version	Checker	Description
CodeSonar	4.2	FB.MT_CORRECTNESS.IS2_INCONSISTENT_SYNC FB.MT_CORRECTNESS.IS_FIELD_NOT_GUARDED FB.MT_CORRECTNESS.STCAL_INVOKE_ON_STATIC_CALENDAR_INSTANCE FB.MT_CORRECTNESS.STCAL_INVOKE_ON_STATIC_DATE_FORMAT_INSTANCE FB.MT_CORRECTNESS.STCAL_STATIC_CALENDAR_INSTANCE FB.MT_CORRECTNESS.STCAL_STATIC_SIMPLE_DATE_FORMAT_INSTANCE	Inconsistent synchronization Field not guarded against concurrent access Call to static Calendar Call to static DateFormat Static Calendar field Static DateFormat
Coverity	7.5	GUARDED_BY_VIOLATION INDIRECT_GUARDED_BY_VIOLATION NON_STATIC_GUARDING_STATIC NON_STATIC_GUARDING_STATIC SERVLET_ATOMICITY FB.IS2_INCONSISTENT_SYNC FB.IS_FIELD_NOT_GUARDED FB.IS_INCONSISTENT_SYNC FB.STCAL_INVOKE_ON_STATIC_ CALENDAR_INSTANCE FB.STCAL_INVOKE_ON_STATIC_ DATE_FORMAT_INSTANCE FB.STCAL_STATIC_CALENDAR_ INSTANCE FB.STCAL_STATIC_SIMPLE_DATE_ FORMAT_INSTANCE	Implemented
Parasoft Jtest	2024.1	CERT.VNA02.SSUG CERT.VNA02.MRAV	Make the get method for a field synchronized if the set method is synchronized Access related Atomic variables in a synchronized block
PVS-Studio	7.33	V6074
ThreadSafe	1.3	CCE_SL_INCONSISTENT CCE_CC_CALLBACK_ACCESS CCE_SL_MIXED CCE_SL_INCONSISTENT_COL CCE_SL_MIXED_COL CCE_CC_UNSAFE_CONTENT	Implemented

Related Guidelines

MITRE CWE

CWE-366, Race Condition within a Thread
CWE-413, Improper Resource Locking
CWE-567, Unsynchronized Access to Shared Data in a Multithreaded Context
CWE-667, Improper Locking

Bibliography

[API 2014]	Class `AtomicInteger`
[Bloch 2008]	Item 66, "Synchronize Access to Shared Mutable Iata"
[Goetz 2006]	Section 2.3, "Locking"
[Java Tutorials]	Java Concurrency Tutorial
[JLS 2015]	Chapter 17, "Threads and Locks" §17.4.3, "Programs and Program Order" §17.4.5, "Happens-before Order" §17.4.8, "Executions and Causality Requirements"
[Lea 2000]	Section 2.1.1.1, "Objects and Locks" Section 2.2.7, "The Java Memory Model"

Time	itemsInInventory=	Thread	Action
1	100	t₁	reads the current value of `itemsInInventory`, 100, into a temporary variable on the thread's stack
2	100	t₂	reads the current value of `itemsInInventory`, (still) 100, into a temporary variable on the thread's stack
3	100	t₁	decrements the temporary variable to 99
4	100	t₂	decrements the temporary variable to 99
5	99	t₁	writes the temporary variable value to `itemsInInventory`
6	99	t₂	writes the temporary variable value to `itemsInInventory`

Space shortcuts

Page tree