[concurrency-interest] RRWL with 'bad' Thread.getId() implementations

√iktor Ҡlang viktor.klang at gmail.com
Tue Jun 25 14:09:36 EDT 2013


Yeah, deprecate getId and introduce new final method sounds like a plan.
On Jun 25, 2013 8:08 PM, "Nathan Reynolds" <nathan.reynolds at oracle.com>
wrote:

>  Wow!  Final getId() would break user code?  Interesting.  Are there any
> examples?  I can dream up a few but I am curious what is out in the wild.
>
> I guess we need another method in Thread which is declared final and
> returns the "tid" member variable value.  Maybe it could be called
> getFinalId(), getImmutableId(), getFirmId(), or getStableId().
>
> Nathan Reynolds<http://psr.us.oracle.com/wiki/index.php/User:Nathan_Reynolds>| Architect |
> 602.333.9091
> Oracle PSR Engineering <http://psr.us.oracle.com/> | Server Technology
>  On 6/25/2013 10:56 AM, Chris Dennis wrote:
>
> The issue about getId() not being final has been thrown about forever –
> it's not going to be fixed because it would cause too much breakage in user
> code.  Seems strange to me though given that we know the non finality of
> getId allows users to do this, we aren't avoiding relying on that method –
> why don't we have some other way for library code (JDK or third-party) to
> get access to a unique identifier for a thread?
>
>   On 6/25/13 1:24 PM, "Nathan Reynolds" <nathan.reynolds at oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
>   The JavaDoc for Thread.getId() says "...thread ID is unique..." so I
> don't think this is a bug in RRWL.  Maybe Thread.getId() should be declared
> final.
>
> We might want to consider going as far as declaring the member field "tid"
> as final.  This could be done via "private long tid = nextThreadID();"
>
> I find it very interesting that threadInitNumber and threadSeqNumber are
> both used in the Thread class.  It seems we only need 1.  It seems that the
> constructor should use "Thread-" + tid for a thread name.  In fact, the
> name could read "Thread-10" and the tid could be 7 because there is a race
> between when the name is generated and the tid is set.  The mismatch
> probably doesn't matter functionally.  However, it could make it easier for
> debugging.
>
> Nathan Reynolds<http://psr.us.oracle.com/wiki/index.php/User:Nathan_Reynolds>| Architect |
> 602.333.9091
> Oracle PSR Engineering <http://psr.us.oracle.com/> | Server Technology
>  On 6/25/2013 9:50 AM, Chris Dennis wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> While dealing with a customer issue, I ran in to the possibility of
> breaking a RRWL by feeding in Thread instances with colliding thread-ids.
> Inside RRWL the cachedHoldCounter logic assumes that getId() will return a
> unique identifier for a thread.  Do people consider this a bug in RRWL or
> not? (I think it would be agreed that this is also a bug in the
> subclassing of Thread)
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Dennis
>
> public static void main(String[] args) {
>   final ReentrantReadWriteLock lock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();
>   final CyclicBarrier barrier = new CyclicBarrier(2);
>
>   Thread t1 = new EvilThread() {
>     public void run() {
>       try {
>         lock.readLock().lock();
>         barrier.await();
>         //T2 locks
>         barrier.await();
>         //T3 locks
>         //T3 unlocks
>         barrier.await();
>         //T2 unlocks
>         barrier.await();
>         lock.readLock().unlock();
>       } catch (Exception e) {
>         e.printStackTrace();
>       }
>     }
>
>   };
>   Thread t2 = new EvilThread() {
>     public void run() {
>       try {
>         //T1 locks
>                   barrier.await();
>                   lock.readLock().lock();
>                   barrier.await();
>                   //T3 locks
>                   //T3 unlocks
>                   barrier.await();
>                   lock.readLock().unlock();
>                   barrier.await();
>                   //T1 unlocks
>       } catch (Exception e) {
>         e.printStackTrace();
>       }
>     }
>
>   };
>   Thread t3 = new EvilThread() {
>     public void run() {
>       try {
>         //T1 locks
>         barrier.await();
>                   //T2 locks
>                   barrier.await();
>                   lock.readLock().lock();
>                   lock.readLock().unlock();
>                   barrier.await();
>                   //T2 unlocks
>                   barrier.await();
>                   //T3 unlocks
>       } catch (Exception e) {
>         e.printStackTrace();
>       }
>     }
>
>   };
>
>   t1.start();
>   t2.start();
>   t3.start();
>   }
>
>
>   static class EvilThread extends Thread {
>   public long getId() {
>     return 42L;
>   }
>   }
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing listConcurrency-interest at cs.oswego.eduhttp://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
>
>
>  _______________________________________________ Concurrency-interest
> mailing list Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20130625/354bc9e5/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list