rspec/rules/S2445/rule.adoc

Synchronizing on a class field synchronizes not on the field itself, but on the object assigned to it. So synchronizing on a non-``final`` field makes it possible for the field's value to change while a thread is in a block synchronized on the old value. That would allow a second thread, synchronized on the new value, to enter the block at the same time.

The story is very similar for synchronizing on parameters; two different threads running the method in parallel could pass two different object instances in to the method as parameters, completely undermining the synchronization.


== Noncompliant Code Example

----
private String color = "red";

private void doSomething(){
  synchronized(color) {  // Noncompliant; lock is actually on object instance "red" referred to by the color variable
    //...
    color = "green"; // other threads now allowed into this block
    // ...
  }
  synchronized(new Object()) { // Noncompliant this is a no-op.
     // ...
  }
}
----


== Compliant Solution

----
private String color = "red";
private final Object lockObj = new Object();

private void doSomething(){
  synchronized(lockObj) {
    //...
    color = "green";
    // ...
  }
}
----


== See

* http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/412.html[MITRE, CWE-412] - Unrestricted Externally Accessible Lock
* http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/413[MITRE, CWE-413] - Improper Resource Locking
* https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/x/djdGBQ[CERT, LCK00-J.] - Use private final lock objects to synchronize classes that may interact with untrusted code