Page History

When multiple threads can read or modify the same data, use synchronization techniques to avoid software flaws that can lead to security vulnerabilities. Concurrency problems Data races can often result in abnormal termination or denial of service, but it is possible for them to result in more serious vulnerabilities. The C Standard, section 5.1.2.5, paragraph 35 [ISO/IEC 9899:2024], says:

The execution of a program contains a data race if it contains two conflicting actions in different threads, at least one of which is not atomic, and neither happens before the other. Any such data race results in undefined behavior.

Noncompliant Code Example

Assume this simplified code is part of a multithreaded bank system. Threads call credit() and debit() as money is deposited into and withdrawn from the single account. Because the addition and subtraction operations are not atomic, it is possible that two operations can occur concurrently, but only the result of one would be saved—despite declaring the account_balance volatile. For example, an attacker can credit the account with a sum of money and make a large number of small debits concurrently. Some of the debits might not affect the account balance because of the race condition, so the attacker is effectively creating money.

static volatile int account_balance;

void debit(int amount) {
  account_balance -= amount;
}

void credit(int amount) {
  account_balance += amount;
}

Compliant Solution (Mutex)

This compliant solution uses a mutex to make credits and debits atomic operations. All credits and debits will now affect the account balance, so an attacker cannot exploit the race condition to steal money from the bank. The mutex is created with the mtx_init() function. Note that the The presence of the mutex makes declaring account_balance volatile unnecessary.

#include <threads.h>

static int account_balance;
static mtx_t account_lock;

if(mtx_init(&account_lock, mtx_plain) == thrd_error) {
	/* Handle error */
}
/* ... */

 
int debit(int amount) {
  if (mtx_lock(&account_lock) == thrd_error) {
    return -1;   /* Indicate error to caller */
  }
  account_balance -= amount;
  if (mtx_unlock(&account_lock) == thrd_error) {
    return -1;   /* Indicate error to caller */
  }
  return 0;   /* Indicate success */
}

int credit(int amount) {
  if (mtx_lock(&account_lock) == thrd_error) {
    return -1;   /* Indicate error to caller */
  }
  account_balance += amount;
  if (mtx_unlock(&account_lock) == thrd_error) {
    return -1;   /* Indicate error to caller */
  }
  return 0;   /* Indicate success */
}

Compliant Solution (Critical Section, Windows)

This compliant solution uses a Microsoft Windows critical section object to make operations involving account_balance atomic [MSDN].  In Windows parlance, a mutex is used to provide synchronization across process boundaries, and a critical section is restricted to providing synchronization across threads of the same process.

#include <Windows.h>

static int account_balance;
static CRITICAL_SECTION account_lock;
 
/* Must be initialized before use */
InitializeCriticalSection(&account_lock);
/* ... */

int debitmain(int amountvoid) {
  EnterCriticalSectionif(mtx_init(&account_lock);
  account_balance -= amount;
  LeaveCriticalSection(&account_lock);
  return 0;   /* Indicate success */
}

int credit(int amount) {
  EnterCriticalSection(&account_lock);
  account_balance += amount;
  LeaveCriticalSection(&account_lock);
  return 0; , mtx_plain) == thrd_error) {
    /* Handle error */
  }
  /* Indicate... success */
}

Compliant Solution (Atomic)

This compliant solution uses an atomic variable to synchronize credit and debit operations. All credits and debits will now affect the account balance, so an attacker cannot exploit the race condition to steal money from the bank. The atomic integer is created with the atomic_init() functiondoes not need to be initialized because default (zero) initialization of an atomic object with static or thread-local storage is guaranteed to produce a valid state. The += and -= operators behave atomically when used with an atomic variable.

#include <stdatomic.h>

atomic_int account_balance;

/* Initialize account_balance */

void debit(int amount) {
  atomic_fetch_sub((volatile atomic_int *)&account_balance, -= amount);
}

void credit(int amount) {
  atomic_fetch_add((volatile atomic_int *)&account_balance, amount);
}

Compliant Solution (Atomic, Windows)

This compliant solution uses the interlocked family of APIs on Windows to provide atomic access to the account_balance variable [MSDN].  Note that account_balance uses the volatile LONG type to match the parameter type expected by InterlockedAdd(), and there is no corresponding interlocked subtraction function, so amount is negated when performing a debit().

#include <Windows.h>

static volatile LONG account_balance;

/* Initialize account_balance */

void debit(int amount) {
  (void)InterlockedAdd(account_balance, -amount);
}

void credit(int amount) {
  (void)InterlockedAdd(account_balance, amount);
}

...

 += amount;
}

Noncompliant Code Example (Double-Fetch)

This noncompliant code example illustrates Xen Security Advisory CVE-2015-8550 / XSA-155 In this example, the following code can be is vulnerable to a data race where a data race where the integer referenced by ps could be modified by a second thread that ran between the two reads of the variable.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
 
void doStuff(int * ps) {
  printf("NON-VOLATILE");
  switch (*ps) {
    case 0: { printf("0"); break; }
    case 1: { printf("1"); break; }
    case 2: { printf("2"); break; }
    case 3: { printf("3"); break; }
    case 4: { printf("4"); break; }
    default: { printf("default"); break; }
  }
}

Even though there is only one read of the *ps variable in the source code, the compiler is permitted to produce object code that performs multiple reads of the memory location. This is permitted by the "as-if" principle, as explained by section 5.1 of the [C99 Rationale 2003]:

The /as if/ principle is invoked repeatedly in this Rationale. The C89 Committee found that describing various aspects of the C language, library, and environment in terms of concrete models best serves discussion and presentation. Every attempt has been made to craft these models so that implementations are constrained only insofar as they must bring about the same result, /as if/ they had implemented the presentation model; often enough the clearest model would make for the worst implementation.

Implementation Details (GCC)

This code produces two reads of the *ps value using GCC 4.8.4 on x86, as well as GCC 5.3.0 on x86-64 (Compiler-Introduced Double-Fetch Vulnerabilities – Understanding XSA-155).

Noncompliant Code Example (Volatile)

The data race can be disabled by declaring the data to be volatile, because the volatile keyword forces the compiler to not produce two reads of the data. However, this violates CON02-C. Do not use volatile as a synchronization primitive.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
 
void doStuff(volatile int * ps) {
  printf("NON-VOLATILE");
  switch (*ps) {
    case 0: { printf("0"); break; }
    case 1: { printf("1"); break; }
    case 2: { printf("2"); break; }
    case 3: { printf("3"); break; }
    case 4: { printf("4"); break; }
    default: { printf("default"); break; }
  }
}

Compliant Solution (C11, Atomic)

Declaring the data to be atomic also forces the compiler to produce only one read of the data.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdatomic.h>
 
void doStuff(atomic_int * ps) {
  printf("NON-VOLATILE");
  switch (atomic_load(ps)) {
    case 0: { printf("0"); break; }
    case 1: { printf("1"); break; }
    case 2: { printf("2"); break; }
    case 3: { printf("3"); break; }
    case 4: { printf("4"); break; }
    default: { printf("default"); break; }
  }
}

Compliant Solution (C11, Fences)

The bug was actually resolved by erecting fences around the switch statement.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdatomic.h>
 
void doStuff(int * ps) {
  printf("NON-VOLATILE");
  atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_acquire);
  switch (*ps) {
    case 0: { printf("0"); break; }
    case 1: { printf("1"); break; }
    case 2: { printf("2"); break; }
    case 3: { printf("3"); break; }
    case 4: { printf("4"); break; }
    default: { printf("default"); break; }
  }
  atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_release);
}

Risk Assessment

Race conditions caused by multiple threads concurrently accessing and modifying the same data can lead to abnormal termination and denial-of-service attacks or data integrity violations.

Automated Detection

Related Vulnerabilities

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

Related Guidelines

...

Key here (explains table format and definitions)

Taxonomy	Taxonomy item	Relationship
CWE 2.11

MITRE CWE

CWE-366, Race condition within a thread

2017-07-07: CERT: Exact

Bibliography

...

...

Image Modified Image Modified Image Modified