7u Code review request for 7033170, 7092821, 7092825

Sean Mullan sean.mullan at oracle.com
Fri Jan 13 09:33:07 PST 2012


On 1/13/12 12:30 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
> On 1/12/12 6:06 PM, Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng wrote:
>> Dave,
>> Thanks for the comments.
>> Let me think about it some more and see how to better address this kind 
>> of racing issue.
>>
>> If you have concerns on fixes for 7033170 and 7092825, please let me know.
>>
>> Sean,
>> Can you please ignore the review request for 7092821 for now. I'll send 
>> out an updated version later.
>> If you can still review the remaining two, that'd be great.
> 
> The fixes for 7033170 and 7092825. I didn't see any difference in the 8 and 7u
> webrevs for 7092825 though - did I miss something?

I meant to write:

The fixes for 7033170 and 7092825 look fine. I didn't see any difference in the
8 and 7u webrevs for 7092825 though - did I miss something?

--Sean
> 
> --Sean
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Valerie
>>
>> On 01/11/12 21:48, David Schlosnagle wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng
>>> <valerie.peng at oracle.com>  wrote:
>>>> 7092821: java.security.Provider.getService() is synchronized and became scalability bottleneck.
>>>> jdk7u Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/7092821_7u/
>>>> jdk8 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/7092821/
>>> Valerie,
>>>
>>> You might already be aware of this, but there is a data race on lines
>>> 685 - 686 of the Provider's getService(String, String) method. If
>>> there are concurrent callers to getService while lookupCache == null,
>>> the lookupCache may be overwritten by a new ConcurrentHashMap after
>>> another thread has just instantiated and  populated an entry in the
>>> cache leading to thrashing on lookupCache. It might be worthwhile to
>>> either use a double checked lock to avoid the race at the expense of
>>> an additional lock and volatile read in the case lookupCache == null
>>> or add a comment indicating that this is an accepted data race.
>>>
>>> There is also now the possibility that if one thread is executing
>>> getService while another thread invokes one of the methods that sets
>>> lookupCache = null, there could then be a NullPointerException on line
>>> 703 as the volatile read would now see a null and fail. You could
>>> prevent that by either moving the putIfAbsent under the lock (not
>>> ideal for performance if you're already seeing contention), or just
>>> maintain a local reference to the cache map and use it throughout the
>>> getService method. This would mean that if the lookupCache reference
>>> was concurrently mutated, the putIfAbsent would basically be a write
>>> to the local map reference which is now garbage, but shouldn't really
>>> hurt anything.
>>>
>>> I'd propose something along the lines of the following to address this:
>>>
>>>      public Service getService(String type, String algorithm) {
>>>          ServiceKey key = new ServiceKey(type, algorithm);
>>>          ConcurrentMap<ServiceKey,Service>  localLookupCache = getLookupCache();
>>>          Service result = localLookupCache.get(key);
>>>          if (result != null) {
>>>              return (result == NULL_MARK? null : result);
>>>          }
>>>          synchronized (this) {
>>>              checkInitialized();
>>>              if (serviceMap != null) {
>>>                  result = serviceMap.get(key);
>>>              }
>>>              if (result == null) {
>>>                  ensureLegacyParsed();
>>>                  result = (legacyMap != null) ? legacyMap.get(key) : null;
>>>              }
>>>          }
>>>          // under concurrent mutation of lookupCache, this will write
>>> to map that is no
>>>          // longer the active cache
>>>          localLookupCache.putIfAbsent(key, (result == null? NULL_MARK : result));
>>>          return result;
>>>      }
>>>
>>>      private ConcurrentMap<ServiceKey,Service>  getLookupCache() {
>>>          if (lookupCache == null) {
>>>              synchronized (this) {
>>>                  // must fall back on double checked lock
>>>                  if (lookupCache == null) {
>>>                      lookupCache = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
>>>                  }
>>>              }
>>>          }
>>>          return lookupCache;
>>>      }
>>>
>>>
>>> - Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> For reference, here were the original changes:
>>>   429     // Cache for service lookups. Discard whenever services are changed.
>>>   430     private transient volatile ConcurrentMap<ServiceKey,Service>
>>> lookupCache;
>>> ...snip...
>>>   682     public Service getService(String type, String algorithm) {
>>>   683         ServiceKey key = new ServiceKey(type, algorithm);
>>>   684         Service result = null;
>>>   685         if (lookupCache == null) {
>>>   686             lookupCache = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
>>>   687         } else {
>>>   688             result = lookupCache.get(key);
>>>   689             if (result != null) {
>>>   690                 return (result == NULL_MARK? null : result);
>>>   691             }
>>>   692         }
>>>   693         synchronized (this) {
>>>   694             checkInitialized();
>>>   695             if (serviceMap != null) {
>>>   696                 result = serviceMap.get(key);
>>>   697             }
>>>   698             if (result == null) {
>>>   699                 ensureLegacyParsed();
>>>   700                 result = (legacyMap != null) ? legacyMap.get(key) : null;
>>>   701             }
>>>   702         }
>>>   703         lookupCache.putIfAbsent(key, (result == null? NULL_MARK : result));
>>>   704         return result;
>>>   705     }
>>



More information about the security-dev mailing list