The java.util.Collections
interface's documentation [[API 2006]] warns about the consequences of failing to synchronize on an accessible collection object when iterating over its view:
It is imperative that the user manually synchronize on the returned map when iterating over any of its collection views... Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
Any class that uses a collection view as the lock object rather than using the backing collection as the lock object may end up with two distinct locking strategies. When the backing collection is accessible to multiple threads, the class that locked on the collection view has violated the thread-safety properties, and is unsafe. Consequently, programs that both require synchronization while iterating over collection views and also have accessible backing collections must synchronize on the backing collection; synchronization on the view is prohibited.
I don't see the point of this statement
To make a group of statements atomic, synchronize on the original collection object when using synchronization wrappers.([CON07-J. Do not assume that a group of calls to independently atomic methods is atomic]).
Noncompliant Code Example (Collection View)
This noncompliant code example creates two views: a synchronized view of an empty HashMap
encapsulated by the map
field and a set view of the map's keys encapsulated by the set
field. This example synchronizes on the set
view [[Tutorials 2008]].
private final Map<Integer, String> map = Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap<Integer, String>()); private final Set<Integer> set = map.keySet(); public Map<Integer, String> getMap() { return map; } public void doSomething() { synchronized (set) { // Incorrectly synchronizes on set for (Integer k : set) { // ... } } }
In this example, HashMap
provides the backing collection for Map
, which provides the backing collection for Set
, as shown in the following figure:
HashMap
is inaccessible, but the map
view is accessible. Because the set
view is synchronized but the map
view is unsynchronized, another thread can modify the contents of map
and invalidate the k
iterator.
Compliant Solution (Collection Lock Object)
This compliant solution synchronizes on the map
view rather than on the set
view.
private final Map<Integer, String> map = Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap<Integer, String>()); private final Set<Integer> set = map.keySet(); public Map<Integer, String> getMap() { return map; } public void doSomething() { synchronized (map) { // Synchronize on map, not set for (Integer k : set) { // ... } } }
This code is compliant because the map's underlying structure cannot be changed while an iteration is in progress.
Risk Assessment
Synchronizing on a collection view instead of the collection object can cause nondeterministic behavior.
Rule |
Severity |
Likelihood |
Remediation Cost |
Priority |
Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
LCK04-J |
low |
probable |
medium |
P4 |
L3 |
Related Vulnerabilities
Any vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule are listed on the CERT website.
Bibliography
[[API 2006]] |
Class Collections |
[[Tutorials 2008]] |
Issue Tracking
Review List
null [!The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java^button_arrow_up.png!] null