RFR: JDK-6823527: java.util.logging.Handler has thread safety issues

Mandy Chung mandy.chung at oracle.com
Thu Aug 29 19:45:57 UTC 2013

On 8/29/13 11:04 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
> On 8/29/13 7:58 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> On 8/29/13 9:46 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>>> Here is the new webrev implementing Jason's suggestion.
>>> Compared to previous webrev only Handler.java & StreamHandler.java
>>> have changed.
>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfuchs/webrev_6823527/webrev.01/>
>> Looks good.  I also agree that making those fields to be volatile is a
>> good suggestion and only requires writer to acquire the lock.
>> A minor comment:  The setter methods in Handler class are synchronized
>> at the method entry whereas StreamHandler.setPushLevel synchronizes
>> after checkPermission() is called.  checkPermission doesn't need to be
>> synchronized.  Either way is fine with me and it'd be good to do it
>> consistently.
> Hi Mandy,
> Are you suggesting I should put checkPermission() within
> the synchronized block? It might be more consistent with
> what the other setters do. Although as you state it does
> not matter much.

Having a second thought - do the setters really need to be 
synchronized?   My guess is that StreamHandler.publish is synchronized 
so as to ensure that the log messages are sequential and not interpersed 
when multiple threads are publishing.  The spec is unclear.  Perhaps it 
worths looking into this further?

One more minor note: MemoryHandler.pushLevel can also be made volatile.
L262: look like the log manager is not needed in the existing code.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list