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"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
  #REDIRECT [[Failure to follow guideline/specification]]
 
  #REDIRECT [[Failure to follow guideline/specification]]
  
 
__TOC__
 
 
[[ASDR Table of Contents]]
 
  
 
Last revision (mm/dd/yy): '''{{REVISIONMONTH}}/{{REVISIONDAY}}/{{REVISIONYEAR}}'''
 
Last revision (mm/dd/yy): '''{{REVISIONMONTH}}/{{REVISIONDAY}}/{{REVISIONYEAR}}'''

Latest revision as of 23:25, 7 April 2009

Template:CandidateForDeletion

#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