You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 48 Next »

Using instance locks to protect static shared data is forbidden, because instance locks are ineffective when two or more instances of the class are created. Consequently, failure to use a static lock object leaves the shared state unprotected against concurrent access. Lock objects for classes that can interact with untrusted code must also be private and final, as shown in rule LCK00-J. Use private final lock objects to synchronize classes that may interact with untrusted code.

Noncompliant Code Example (Non-static Lock Object for Static Data)

This noncompliant code example attempts to guard access to a static counter field using a non-static lock object. When two Runnable tasks are started, they will create two instances of the lock object and will lock on each instance separately.

public final class CountBoxes implements Runnable {
  private static volatile int counter;
  // ...
  private final Object lock = new Object();

  @Override public void run() {
    synchronized(lock) {
      counter++;
      // ...
    }
  }

  public static void main(String[] args) {
    for(int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
      new Thread(new CountBoxes()).start();
    }
  }
}

This example fails to prevent either thread from observing an inconsistent value of counter because the increment operation on volatile fields fails to be atomic in the absence of proper synchronization. (See rule VNA02-J. Ensure that compound operations on shared variables are atomic.)

Noncompliant Code Example (Method Synchronization for Static Data)

This noncompliant code example uses method synchronization to protect access to a static class counter field.

public final class CountBoxes implements Runnable {
  private static volatile int counter;
  // ...

  public synchronized void run() {
    counter++;
    // ...
  }
  // ...
}

In this case, the method synchronization uses the intrinsic lock associated with each instance of the class rather than the intrinsic lock associated with the class itself. Consequently, threads constructed using different Runnable instances may observe inconsistent values of the counter.

Compliant Solution (Static Lock Object)

This compliant solution ensures the atomicity of the increment operation by declaring the lock object as static.

public class CountBoxes implements Runnable {
  private static int counter;
  // ...
  private static final Object lock = new Object();

  public void run() {
    synchronized(lock) {
      counter++;
      // ...
  }
  // ...
}

It is unnecessary to declare the counter variable volatile when using synchronization.

Risk Assessment

Using an instance lock to protect static shared data can result in nondeterministic behavior.

Rule

Severity

Likelihood

Remediation Cost

Priority

Level

LCK06-J

medium

probable

medium

P8

L2

Automated Detection

The following table summarizes the examples flagged as violations by SureLogic Flashlight:

Noncompliant Code Example

Flagged

Message

non-static lock object for static data

No

No obvious issues

method synchronization for static data

No

No obvious issues

The following table summarizes the examples flagged as violations by SureLogic JSure:

Noncompliant Code Example

Flagged

Message

non-static lock object for static data

Yes

modeling problem: static region "counter" should be protected by a static field

method synchronization for static data

Yes

modeling problem: static region "counter" should be protected by a static field

Related Vulnerabilities

Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.

Bibliography

<ac:structured-macro ac:name="unmigrated-wiki-markup" ac:schema-version="1" ac:macro-id="6a28620c-17c7-4dbd-9687-87c6c4ddefeb"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[

[[API 2006

AA. Bibliography#API 06]]

]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:structured-macro>

Issue Tracking

100%

Review List

  1. handler

    "Ideally, the lock should also be private and final" => I have been penalized for using "ideally" before. I would just remove that sentence or make it more definitive. Note that we also have an NCE that uses method synchronization. Perhaps we also need a CS with a static method.

    Priority MEDIUM
    rcs_mgr
    Apr 02, 2010

      08. Locking (LCK)      

  • No labels