Composite operations consisting of more than one discrete operation are, by definition, non-atomic. For example, the Java expression x++ is non-atomic because it is a composite operation consisting of three discrete operations: reading the current value of x, adding one to it, and writing the new, incremented value back to x. Errors can arise from composite operations that need to be perceived atomically but are not. [[JLS 05]].
For atomicity of a grouping of calls to independently atomic methods of the existing Java API, see CON07-J. Do not assume that a grouping 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 though this is not an issue with most modern JVMs (see CON25-J. Ensure atomicity when reading and writing 64-bit values).
Noncompliant Code Example (post-decrement composite operation)
This noncompliant code example contains a data race that may result in the itemsInInventory field being incorrectly decremented.
private int itemsInInventory = 100;
public final int removeItem() {
if (itemsInInventory > 0) {
return itemsInInventory--; // Returns new count of items in inventory
}
return -1; // Error code
}
public final int returnItem() {
if (itemsInInventory == Integer.MAX_VALUE) { // Check for integer overflow
return -1; // Error Code
}
return itemsInInventory++;
}
For example, if the removeItem() method is concurrently invoked by two threads, the execution of these threads may be interleaved so that:
- The first thread reads the current value of
itemsInInventory(100). - The second thread reads the current value of
itemsInInventory(100). - The first thread decrements the locally cached value (99).
- The second thread decrements the locally cached value (99).
- The first thread writes the locally cached value to
itemsInInventory(99). - The second thread writes the locally cached value to
itemsInInventory(99).
As a result, a decrement operation is "lost" and the itemsInInventory value is now incorrect.
Similarly, the returnItem() method that increments itemsInInventory is also non-atomic.
Noncompliant Code Example (volatile)
This noncompliant code example attempts to resolve the problem by declaring itemsInInventory volatile.
private volatile int itemsInInventory = 100;
public final int removeItem() {
if (itemsInInventory > 0) {
return itemsInInventory--; // Returns new count of items in inventory
}
return -1; // Error code
}
public final int returnItem() {
if (itemsInInventory == Integer.MAX_VALUE) { // Check for integer overflow
return -1; // Error Code
}
return itemsInInventory++;
}
Volatile variables are unsuitable when more than one read/write operation needs to be atomic. The use of a volatile variable in this noncompliant code example guarantees that once itemsInInventory has been updated, the new value is visible to all threads that read the field. However, because the post decrement operator is nonatomic, even when volatile is used, the interleaving described in the previous noncompliant code example is still possible.
Similarly, the increment composite operation in the returnItem() method is non-atomic.
Compliant Solution (java.util.concurrent.atomic classes)
The java.util.concurrent utilities can be used to atomically manipulate a shared variable. This compliant solution uses a java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger variable which allows certain composite operations to be performed atomically.
private final AtomicInteger itemsInInventory = new AtomicInteger(100);
private final int removeItem() {
for (;;) {
int old = itemsInInventory.get();
if (old > 0) {
int next = old - 1; // Decrement
if (itemsInInventory.compareAndSet(old, next)) {
return next; // Returns new count of items in inventory
}
} else {
return -1; // Error code
}
}
}
According to the Java API [[API 06]], class AtomicInteger documentation:
[AtomicInteger is an]
intvalue that may be updated atomically. AnAtomicIntegeris used in applications such as atomically incremented counters, and cannot be used as a replacement for anInteger. However, this class does extendNumberto allow uniform access by tools and utilities that deal with numerically-based classes.
The compareAndSet() method takes two arguments, the expected value of a variable when the method is invoked and the updated value. This compliant solution uses this method to atomically set the value of itemsInInventory to the updated value if and only if the current value equals the expected value [[API 06]]. The for loop guarantees the same behavior of the original function, namely that the function succeeds in decrementing itemsInInventory or an error is returned.
The returnItem() method can be fixed by using the java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger.getAndIncrement() method.
public final int returnItem() {
int temp = itemsInInventory.getAndIncrement();
if (temp == Integer.MIN_VALUE) { // Check for integer overflow
return -1;
}
return temp;
}
The getAndIncrement() does not check for integer overflow. Consequently, returnItem() has to check the returned value to ensure that itemsInInventory has not wrapped around to Integer.MIN_VALUE after the increment operation. This can be done after performing the getAndIncrement() operation.
Notably, this functionality could also be implemented by using the compareAndSet() method. The getAndIncrement() alternative is useful when control over setting the returned value must lie in the hands of the caller instead of the invoked method (returnItem()).
Note that updated shared variables are visible to other threads.
Compliant Solution (method synchronization)
Synchronization provides a way to safely share object state across multiple threads without the need to reason about reorderings, compiler optimizations, and hardware specific behavior.
This compliant solution uses method synchronization to synchronize access to itemsInInventory. Consequently, access to itemsInInventory is mutually exclusive and its state consistent across all threads.
private final int itemsInInventory = 100;
public final synchronized int removeItem() {
if (itemsInInventory > 0) {
return itemsInInventory--; // Returns new count of items in inventory
}
return -1; // Error Code
}
public synchronized final int returnItem() {
if (itemsInInventory == Integer.MIN_VALUE) { // Check for integer overflow
return -1;
}
return itemsInInventory++;
}
Synchronization is more expensive than using the optimized java.util.concurrent utilities and should only be used when the utilities do not contain the facilities (methods) required to carry out the atomic operation. When synchronizing, care must be taken to avoid deadlocks (see CON12-J. Avoid deadlock by requesting and releasing locks in the same order).
Note that updates to correctly synchronized shared variables are visible to other threads.
Compliant Solution (block synchronization)
Constructors and methods can use an alternative representation called block synchronization which synchronizes a block of code rather than a method, as highlighted in this compliant solution.
private final int itemsInInventory = 100;
public int removeItem() {
synchronized(this) {
if (itemsInInventory > 0) {
return itemsInInventory--; // Returns new count of items in inventory
}
return -1; // Error code
}
}
similarly, the returnItem() method can be fixed by using block synchronization:
public final int returnItem() {
synchronized(this) {
if (itemsInInventory == Integer.MIN_VALUE) { // Check for integer overflow
return -1;
}
return itemsInInventory++;
}
}
Block synchronization is preferable over method synchronization because it reduces the duration for which the lock is held and also protects against denial of service attacks. Block synchronization requires synchronizing on an internal private lock object instead of the intrinsic lock of the class's object (see CON04-J. Use the private lock object idiom instead of the Class object's intrinsic locking mechanism).
When the number of items is 0 most of the time, the synchronized block may be moved inside the if condition to reduce the performance cost associated with synchronization. In that case, the variable itemsInInventory must be declared as volatile because the check to determine whether it is greater than 0 should rely on the latest value of itemsInInventory.
Compliant Solution (ReentrantLock)
This compliant solution uses a java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock to atomically perform the post-decrement operation.
private int itemsInInventory = 100;
private final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
public int removeItem() {
Boolean myLock = false;
try {
myLock = lock.tryLock();
if (itemsInInventory > 0) {
return itemsInInventory--;
}
} finally {
if (myLock) {
lock.unlock();
}
}
return -1; // Error code
}
Similarly, the returnItem() method can be made atomic:
public int returnItem() {
Boolean myLock = false;
try {
myLock = lock.tryLock();
if (itemsInInventory == Integer.MIN_VALUE) { // Check for integer overflow
return -1;
}
return itemsInInventory++;
} finally {
if (myLock) {
lock.unlock();
}
}
return -1; // Error code
}
Code that uses this lock behaves similar to synchronized code that uses the traditional monitor lock. ReentrantLock provides several other capabilities, for instance, the tryLock() method does not block waiting if another thread is already holding the lock. The class java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock can be used when some thread requires a lock to write information while other threads require the lock to concurrently read the information.
Noncompliant Code Example (addition)
In this noncompliant code example, the two fields a and b may be set by multiple threads, using the setValues() method.
private volatile int a;
private volatile int b;
public int getSum() throws ArithmeticException {
// Check for integer overflow
if( b > 0 ? a > Integer.MAX_VALUE - b : a < Integer.MIN_VALUE - b ) {
throw new ArithmeticException("Not in range");
}
return a + b;
}
public void setValues(int a, int b) {
this.a = a;
this.b = b;
}
The getSum() method may return a different sum every time it is invoked from different threads. For instance, if a and b currently have the value 0, and one thread calls getSum() while another calls setValues(1, 1), then getSum() might return 0, 1, or 2. Of these, the value 1 is unacceptable; it is returned when the first thread reads a and b, after the second thread has set the value of a but before it has set the value of b.
Compliant Solution (addition)
This compliant solution synchronizes the setValues() method so that the entire operation is atomic.
private int a;
private int b;
public synchronized int getSum() throws ArithmeticException {
// Check for integer overflow
if( b > 0 ? a > Integer.MAX_VALUE - b : a < Integer.MIN_VALUE - b ) {
throw new ArithmeticException("Not in range");
}
return a + b;
}
public synchronized void setValues(int a, int b) {
this.a = a;
this.b = b;
}
Unlike the noncompliant code example, if a and b currently have the value 0, and one thread calls getSum() while another calls setValues(1, 1), getSum() may return return 0, or 2, depending on which thread obtains the intrinsic lock first. The locking guarantees that getSum() will never return the unacceptable value 1.
Risk Assessment
If operations on shared variables are not atomic, unexpected results may be produced. For example, there can be inadvertent information disclosure as one user may be able to receive information about other users.
Rule |
Severity |
Likelihood |
Remediation Cost |
Priority |
Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CON01- J |
medium |
probable |
medium |
P8 |
L2 |
Automated Detection
TODO
Related Vulnerabilities
Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.
References
[[API 06]] Class AtomicInteger
[[JLS 05]] Chapter 17, Threads and Locks
, section 17.4.5 Happens-before Order, section 17.4.3 Programs and Program Order, section 17.4.8 Executions and Causality Requirements
[[Tutorials 08]] Java Concurrency Tutorial
[[Lea 00]] Sections, 2.2.7 The Java Memory Model, 2.2.5 Deadlock, 2.1.1.1 Objects and locks
[[Bloch 08]] Item 66: Synchronize access to shared mutable data
[[Daconta 03]] Item 31: Instance Variables in Servlets
[[JavaThreads 04]] Section 5.2 Atomic Variables
[[Goetz 06]] 2.3. "Locking"
[[MITRE 09]] CWE ID 667 "Insufficient Locking", CWE ID 413 "Insufficient Resource Locking", CWE ID 366 "Race Condition within a Thread", CWE ID 567 "Unsynchronized Access to Shared Data"
11. Concurrency (CON) 11. Concurrency (CON) CON02-J. Always synchronize on the appropriate object