
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 , and |=
. Compound operations on shared variables must be performed atomically to prevent data races.
Noncompliant Code Example (Logical Negation)
This noncompliant code example declares a shared_
Bool
Bool
flag
variable and provides a toggle_flag()
method that negates the current value of flag
.: Code Block | |
---|---|
|
| |||
#include <stdbool.h> static |
bool flag = |
false; void toggle_flag(void) { flag = !flag; } |
bool get_flag(void) { return flag; } |
Execution of this code may result in a data race because because the value of of flag
is is read, negated, and written back.
Consider, for example, two threads that call toggle_flag()
. 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 |
| Thread | Action |
---|---|---|---|
1 |
| t 1 |
Reads the current value of | ||
2 |
| t 2 |
Reads the current value of | ||
3 |
| t 1 |
Toggles the temporary variable in the cache to | ||
4 |
| t 2 |
Toggles the temporary variable in the different cache to | ||
5 |
| t 1 |
Writes the cache variable's value to | ||
6 |
| t 2 |
Writes the different cache variable's value to |
As a result, the effect of the call by t 2 is not reflected in flag
; the program behaves as if toggle_flag()
was called only once, not twice.
Noncompliant Code Example (Bitwise Negation)
The toggle_flag()
method may also use the compound assignment operator ^=
to negate the current value of flag
.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
static _Bool flag = 0;
void toggle_flag() {
flag ^= 1;
}
_Bool get_flag() {
return flag;
}
|
^=
is a nonatomic compound operation.
Compliant Solution (Mutex)
This compliant solution restricts access to flag
under a mutex lock.
:
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
#include <threads.h> #include <stdbool.h> static |
bool flag = |
false; mtx_t flag_mutex; |
/* Initialize flag_mutex */ bool init_mutex(int type) { /* |
Check |
mutex type */ if ( |
thrd_success != mtx_init(&flag_mutex, |
type)) |
{ return false; /* |
Report error */ } return true; } void toggle_flag(void) { |
if ( |
thrd_success != mtx_lock(&flag_mutex)) |
{
/* |
Handle error */ } flag |
= |
!flag; if ( |
thrd_success != mtx_unlock(&flag_mutex |
) |
) {
/* |
Handle error */ } } |
bool get_flag(void) { |
bool temp_flag; if ( |
thrd_success != mtx_lock(&flag_mutex)) |
{
/* |
Handle error */ } temp_flag = flag; if ( |
thrd_success != mtx_unlock(&flag_mutex |
) |
) {
/* |
Handle error */ } return temp_flag; } |
This solution guards reads and writes to
thethe flag
field with a lock on the flag_mutex
. This lock ensures that changes to flag
are visible to all threads. Now, only two execution orders are possible
. In one execution order, t1 obtains the mutex and completes the operation before t 2 can acquire the mutex, as shown here:
Time |
| Thread | Action |
---|---|---|---|
1 |
| t 1 |
Reads the current value of | ||
2 |
| t 1 |
Toggles the cache variable to | ||
3 |
| t 1 |
Writes the cache variable's value to | ||
4 |
| t 2 |
Reads the current value of | ||
5 |
| t 2 |
Toggles the different cache variable to | ||
6 |
| t 2 |
Writes the different cache variable's value to |
The second other execution order involves the same operations, but is similar, except that t 2 starts and finishes before t 1.
Compliant Solution (
AtomicBoolean
atomic_compare_exchange_weak()
)
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; } } |
uses atomic variables and a compare-and-exchange operation to guarantee that the correct value is stored in flag
. All updates are visible to other threads.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
#include <stdatomic.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
static atomic_bool flag;
void init_flag(void) {
atomic_init(&flag, false);
}
void toggle_flag(void) {
bool old_flag = atomic_load(&flag);
bool new_flag;
do {
new_flag = !old_flag;
} while (!atomic_compare_exchange_weak(&flag, &old_flag, new_flag));
}
bool get_flag(void) {
return atomic_load(&flag);
} |
An alternative solution is to use the atomic_flag
data type for managing Boolean values atomicallyThe 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 setValuesset_values()
method to set the a
and b
fields. Because this class code fails to test for integer overflow, users of the Adder
class must this code must also ensure that the arguments to the setValuesset_values()
method can be added without overflow . (See rule NUM00-J. Detect or prevent integer see INT32-C. Ensure that operations on signed integers do not result in 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; } } |
).
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
static int a;
static int b;
int get_sum(void) {
return a + b;
}
void set_values(int new_a, int new_b) {
a = new_a;
b = new_b;
} |
The get_sum
The getSum()
method contains a race condition. For example, when a
and b
currently have the values 0
and Integer.MAX_VALUE
and INT_MAX
, respectively, and one thread calls getSumget_sum()
while another calls setValues(Integer.MAX_VALUEset_values(INT_MAX, 0)
, the getSumget_sum()
method might return either 0
or Integer.INT_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
, INT_MAX
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 and b
are 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); } } |
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
#include <stdatomic.h>
static atomic_int a;
static atomic_int b;
void init_ab(void) {
atomic_init(&a, 0);
atomic_init(&b, 0);
}
int get_sum(void) {
return atomic_load(&a) + atomic_load(&b);
}
void set_values(int new_a, int new_b) {
atomic_store(&a, new_a);
atomic_store(&b, new_b);
} |
int
fields with atomic integers fails to eliminate the race condition in the sum because the compound operation a.get() + b.get()
is still non-atomic. While a sum of some value of a
and some value of b
will be returned, there is no guarantee that this value represents the sum of the values of a
and b
at any particular moment.Compliant Solution (_Atomic struct
)
This compliant solution uses an atomic struct, which guarantees that both numbers are read and written together.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
#include <stdatomic.h> static _Atomic struct ab_s { int a, b; } ab; void init_ab(void) { struct ab_s new_ab = {0, 0}; atomic_init(&ab, new_ab); } int get_sum(void) { struct ab_s new_ab = atomic_load(&ab); return new_ab.a + new_ab.b; } void set_values(int new_a, int new_b) { struct ab_s new_ab = {new_a, new_b}; atomic_store(&ab, new_ab); } |
On most modern platforms, this will compile to be lock-free.
Compliant Solution (
AdditionMutex)
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; } } |
protects the set_values()
and get_sum()
methods with a mutex to ensure atomicity:
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
#include <threads.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
static int a;
static int b;
mtx_t flag_mutex;
/* Initialize everything */
bool init_all(int type) {
/* Check mutex type */
a = 0;
b = 0;
if (thrd_success != mtx_init(&flag_mutex, type)) {
return false; /* Report error */
}
return true;
}
int get_sum(void) {
if (thrd_success != mtx_lock(&flag_mutex)) {
/* Handle error */
}
int sum = a + b;
if (thrd_success != mtx_unlock(&flag_mutex)) {
/* Handle error */
}
return sum;
}
void set_values(int new_a, int new_b) {
if (thrd_success != mtx_lock(&flag_mutex)) {
/* Handle error */
}
a = new_a;
b = new_b;
if (thrd_success != mtx_unlock(&flag_mutex)) {
/* Handle error */
}
} |
Thanks to the mutex, it is now possible to add overflow checking to the get_sum()
function The operations within the synchronized methods are now atomic with respect to other synchronized methods that lock on that object's monitor (that is, it's 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 | Detectable |
---|
Repairable | Priority | Level |
---|
CON07- |
C | Medium |
Probable |
Yes |
No | P8 | L2 |
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CodeSonar |
| CONCURRENCY.DATARACE | Data Race |
Related Guidelines
CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java | VNA02-J. Ensure that compound operations on shared variables are atomic |
Some available static analysis tools can detect the instances of nonatomic 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.
Related Guidelines
CWE-667. Improper locking
CWE-413. Improper resource locking
Race condition within a thread |
, Unsynchronized access to shared data in a multithreaded context |
Bibliography
[API 2006] | Class |
Item 66. Synchronize access to shared mutable data | |
2.3, Locking | |
[JLS 2005] | |
| §17.4.5, Happens-Before Order |
| §17.4.3, Programs and Program Order |
| §17.4.8, Executions and Causality Requirements |
[Lea 2000] | Section 2.2.7, The Java Memory Model |
| Section 2.1.1.1, Objects and Locks |
CWE-667, Improper locking |
Bibliography
Subclause 7.17, "Atomics" |