This site is the archived OWASP Foundation Wiki and is no longer accepting Account Requests.
To view the new OWASP Foundation website, please visit https://owasp.org
Difference between revisions of "Code Correctness: Double-Checked Locking"
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{template:CandidateForDeletion}} |
| − | |||
| − | + | #REDIRECT [[Failure to follow guideline/specification]] | |
| − | |||
Last revision (mm/dd/yy): '''{{REVISIONMONTH}}/{{REVISIONDAY}}/{{REVISIONYEAR}}''' | Last revision (mm/dd/yy): '''{{REVISIONMONTH}}/{{REVISIONDAY}}/{{REVISIONYEAR}}''' | ||
| Line 65: | Line 63: | ||
* [[1] D. Bacon et al. The "Double-Checked Locking is Broken" Declaration. http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html. | * [[1] D. Bacon et al. The "Double-Checked Locking is Broken" Declaration. http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 23:25, 7 April 2009
#REDIRECT Failure to follow guideline/specification
Last revision (mm/dd/yy): 04/7/2009
Description
Double-checked locking is an incorrect idiom that does not achieve the intended effect.
Many talented individuals have spent a great deal of time pondering ways to make double-checked locking work in order to improve performance. None have succeeded.
Risk Factors
TBD
Examples
At first blush it may seem that the following bit of code achieves thread safety while avoiding unnecessary synchronization.
if (fitz == null) {
synchronized (this) {
if (fitz == null) {
fitz = new Fitzer();
}
}
}
return fitz;
The programmer wants to guarantee that only one Fitzer() object is ever allocated, but does not want to pay the cost of synchronization every time this code is called. This idiom is known as double-checked locking.
Unfortunately, it does not work, and multiple Fitzer() objects can be allocated. See The "Double-Checked Locking is Broken" Declaration for more details [1].
Related Attacks
Related Vulnerabilities
Related Controls
Related Technical Impacts
References
- [[1] D. Bacon et al. The "Double-Checked Locking is Broken" Declaration. http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html.
