Hacktoberfest 2026:メンテナが10月に向けて印を付けた、オープンで初心者向けの issue。 Hacktoberfest の issue を見る

False Negative: DoubleCheckedLocking.ql misses non-volatile lazy initialization once the null checks are split across locals, helpers, or early returns.

オープン
#21,542 コメント 1 件 リアクション 0 件 担当者 0 名 GitHub で見る

まだ誰も着手していません。

評価

難易度
4/5
見積もり時間
3〜5日
初心者へのやさしさ
52/100
issue の種類
バグ
明瞭さ
おおむね明確
活発さ
静か
技術スタック
java
領域
security

調査の方向性

Likely Bugs/Concurrency/DoubleCheckedLocking.ql から始め、そのマッチングロジックを PosCase1_Var2.java、PosCase1_Var3.java、PosCase1_Var5.java、PosCase2_Var3.java、PosCase2_Var5.java と比較します。クエリが non-volatile な読み取り、同期された初期化、ローカル変数、ヘルパー、早期 return をどのようにモデル化しているかを追跡します。完了条件は、checker が単一の標準的な AST 形状に依存せず、5 つすべての安全でないパターンを報告することです。

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。

説明

False Negative: DoubleCheckedLocking.ql misses non-volatile lazy initialization once the null checks are split across locals, helpers, or early returns.

Version
codeql 2.24.3

Checker

  • Checker id: Likely Bugs/Concurrency/DoubleCheckedLocking.ql
  • Checker description: Detects double-checked locking patterns on non-volatile fields that are not thread-safe due to improper synchronization and field visibility issues.

Description of the false negative

All five samples preserve the same unsafe publication pattern: a non-volatile field is read outside synchronization and lazily initialized under synchronization. The code only changes how the null checks and the return are spelled.

That should still be enough for Likely Bugs/Concurrency/DoubleCheckedLocking.ql to report the pattern.

Affected test cases

PosCase1_Var2.java

The boolean temporaries only cache the same two null checks. This is still ordinary double-checked locking on a non-volatile field.

// Double-checked locking on non-volatile, non-immutable field should be flagged as thread-unsafe.
package scensct.var.pos;

public class PosCase1_Var2 {
    private Object instance;

    public Object getInstance() {
        // outer check with boolean flag
        boolean needSync = instance == null;
        if (needSync) {
            synchronized (this) {
                // inner check with explicit condition variable
                boolean stillNull = instance == null;
                if (stillNull) {
                    instance = new Object();
                }
            }
        }
        return instance;
    }
}
PosCase1_Var3.java

The early return does not make the pattern safe. The field is still observed outside synchronization and initialized lazily inside the synchronized block.

// Double-checked locking on non-volatile, non-immutable field should be flagged as thread-unsafe.
package scensct.var.pos;

public class PosCase1_Var3 {
    private Object instance;

    public Object getInstance() {
        if (instance != null) {
            return instance; // early return instead of if-null
        }
        synchronized (this) {
            if (instance == null) {
                instance = new Object();
            }
            return instance; // return inside synchronized block
        }
    }
}
PosCase1_Var5.java

Moving the inner null check into initSingleton() only hides the same unsafe initialization pattern behind a helper.

// Double-checked locking on non-volatile, non-immutable field should be flagged as thread-unsafe.
package scensct.var.pos;

public class PosCase1_Var5 {
    private Object instance;

    private void initSingleton() {
        if (instance == null) {
            instance = new Object();
        }
    }

    public Object getInstance() {
        if (instance == null) {
            synchronized (this) {
                // inner check moved into helper but still inside sync
                initSingleton();
            }
        }
        return instance;
    }
}
PosCase2_Var3.java

The helper methods separate the outer check, the synchronized initialization, and the final read, but the field is still accessed outside synchronization and remains non-volatile.

// Double-checked locking on non-volatile immutable-type field with field access outside synchronized block should be flagged.
package scensct.var.pos;

public class PosCase2_Var3 {
    private String instance;

    public String getInstance() {
        if (isNotInitialized()) { // Outer check extracted to helper
            initializeSafely();
        }
        return retrieveInstance(); // Access extracted to helper
    }

    private boolean isNotInitialized() {
        return instance == null;
    }

    private void initializeSafely() {
        synchronized (this) {
            if (instance == null) {
                instance = "lazy";
            }
        }
    }

    private String retrieveInstance() {
        return instance; // Access outside synchronized block
    }
}
PosCase2_Var5.java

This is still a read-outside-sync / initialize-inside-sync pattern. Restructuring it as an early return does not repair the memory-visibility problem.

// Double-checked locking on non-volatile immutable-type field with field access outside synchronized block should be flagged.
package scensct.var.pos;

public class PosCase2_Var5 {
    private String instance;

    public String getInstance() {
        // Restructured control flow with early return for null after sync
        if (instance != null) {
            return instance; // Early return, but still access outside sync
        }
        synchronized (this) {
            if (instance == null) {
                instance = "done";
            }
        }
        // Field accessed after synchronization block
        return instance;
    }
}

Cause analysis

The query appears too tied to one canonical AST shape for double-checked locking. As soon as the outer check is cached in a local, the inner initialization moves to a helper, or the method returns early on the fast path, the match falls apart.

That is a real modeling gap. The thread-safety problem depends on non-volatile publication and unsynchronized reads, not on whether the code is written in one exact syntactic form.

References

None known.

主要言語
CodeQL
スター
10.1k
フォーク
2.1k
平均マージ
2日 16時間
マージ済み PR(30日)
143

コントリビューションガイド

コントリビューションガイドを開く

はじめの一歩

  1. issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
  2. 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
  3. リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
  4. issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。

github/codeql のほかの issue

github/codeql の issue をすべて見る

似ている issue

Security の issue をもっと見る

新しい issue をメールで受け取る

初心者向けの GitHub issue を短くまとめたダイジェスト。