Our website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience.
Accept
to the top
close form

Fill out the form in 2 simple steps below:

Your contact information:

Step 1
Congratulations! This is your promo code!

Desired license type:

Step 2
Team license
Enterprise license
** By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement
close form
Request our prices
New License
License Renewal
--Select currency--
USD
EUR
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

close form
Free PVS‑Studio license for Microsoft MVP specialists
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

close form
To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

close form
I am interested to try it on the platforms:
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

close form
check circle
Message submitted.

Your message has been sent. We will email you at


If you haven't received our response, please do the following:
check your Spam/Junk folder and click the "Not Spam" button for our message.
This way, you won't miss messages from our team in the future.

>
>
>
V6102. Inconsistent synchronization of …
menu mobile close menu
Analyzer diagnostics
General Analysis (C++)
General Analysis (C#)
General Analysis (Java)
Micro-Optimizations (C++)
Diagnosis of 64-bit errors (Viva64, C++)
Customer specific requests (C++)
MISRA errors
AUTOSAR errors
OWASP errors (C#)
Problems related to code analyzer
Additional information
toggle menu Contents

V6102. Inconsistent synchronization of a field. Consider synchronizing the field on all usages.

Dec 14 2020

The analyzer has detected a field being accessed without synchronization while most previous accesses to this field occurred in synchronized context.

Incomplete synchronization can be a reason for a race condition, where the shared state is being modified by several threads at once, the output depending on the order of threads’ execution. This results in a variety of errors, which show up unexpectedly and often cannot be reproduced when debugging in similar conditions.

In other words, fields must either be synchronized on every usage or remain unsynchronized at all to avoid misleading the programmers who will be maintaining the code later. For this reason, if the analyzer issues a V6102 warning, make sure that all accesses to the field are synchronized.

Here is a simple example from a real project, where accesses to the 'acked' field are synchronized in all cases but one:

public class FixedTupleSpout implements IRichSpout
{
  private static final Map<String, Integer> acked = new HashMap<>();
  ....

  public static int getNumAcked(String stormId)
  {
    synchronized (acked)
    {
      return get(acked, stormId, 0);
    }
  }

  public static void clear(String stormId)
  {
    acked.remove(stormId);                         // <=
    ....
  }

  public int getCompleted()
  {
    synchronized (acked)
    {
      ackedAmt = acked.get(_id);
    }
    ....
  }

  public void cleanup()
  {
    synchronized (acked)
    {
      acked.remove(_id);
    }
    ....
  }
}

Since the access to 'acked' in the 'clear' method is unsynchronized, this field is likely to be accessed from several different threads at once. Since 'acked' is an instance of a thread-unsafe collection HashMap, such access is very likely to corrupt the object’s internal state. To solve this issue, the 'acked.remove(stormId)' expression must be enclosed in a 'synchronized' block:

public class FixedTupleSpout implements IRichSpout
{
  private static final Map<String, Integer> acked = new HashMap<>();
  ....

  public static int getNumAcked(String stormId)
  {
    synchronized (acked)
    {
      return get(acked, stormId, 0);
    }
  }

  public static void clear(String stormId)
  {
    synchronized (acked))
    {
      acked.remove(stormId);
    }
    ....
  }

  public int getCompleted()
  {
    synchronized (acked)
    {
      ackedAmt = acked.get(_id);
    }
    ....
  }

  public void cleanup()
  {
    synchronized (acked)
    {
      acked.remove(_id);
    }
    ....
  }
}

This diagnostic is classified as: