rspec/rules/S2445/rule.adoc
Arseniy Zaostrovnykh 7ca29f686f Force linebreaks
2021-02-02 15:02:10 +01:00

47 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext

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