How can I create a memory leak in Java?

Question

I just had an interview, and I was asked to create a memory leak with Java.

Needless to say, I felt pretty dumb having no clue on how to eve

Answer 1

I have had a nice "memory leak" in relation to PermGen and XML parsing once. The XML parser we used (I can't remember which one it was) did a String.intern() on tag names, to make comparison faster. One of our customers had the great idea to store data values not in XML attributes or text, but as tagnames, so we had a document like:

<data>
   <1>bla</1>
   <2>foo</>
   ...
</data>

In fact, they did not use numbers but longer textual IDs (around 20 characters), which were unique and came in at a rate of 10-15 million a day. That makes 200 MB of rubbish a day, which is never needed again, and never GCed (since it is in PermGen). We had permgen set to 512 MB, so it took around two days for the out-of-memory exception (OOME) to arrive...

Answer 2

I thought it was interesting that no one used the internal class examples. If you have an internal class; it inherently maintains a reference to the containing class. Of course it is not technically a memory leak because Java WILL eventually clean it up; but this can cause classes to hang around longer than anticipated.

public class Example1 {
  public Example2 getNewExample2() {
    return this.new Example2();
  }
  public class Example2 {
    public Example2() {}
  }
}

Now if you call Example1 and get an Example2 discarding Example1, you will inherently still have a link to an Example1 object.

public class Referencer {
  public static Example2 GetAnExample2() {
    Example1 ex = new Example1();
    return ex.getNewExample2();
  }

  public static void main(String[] args) {
    Example2 ex = Referencer.GetAnExample2();
    // As long as ex is reachable; Example1 will always remain in memory.
  }
}

I've also heard a rumor that if you have a variable that exists for longer than a specific amount of time; Java assumes that it will always exist and will actually never try to clean it up if cannot be reached in code anymore. But that is completely unverified.

Answer 3

Threads are not collected until they terminate. They serve as roots of garbage collection. They are one of the few objects that won't be reclaimed simply by forgetting about them or clearing references to them.

Consider: the basic pattern to terminate a worker thread is to set some condition variable seen by the thread. The thread can check the variable periodically and use that as a signal to terminate. If the variable is not declared volatile, then the change to the variable might not be seen by the thread, so it won't know to terminate. Or imagine if some threads want to update a shared object, but deadlock while trying to lock on it.

If you only have a handful of threads these bugs will probably be obvious because your program will stop working properly. If you have a thread pool that creates more threads as needed, then the obsolete/stuck threads might not be noticed, and will accumulate indefinitely, causing a memory leak. Threads are likely to use other data in your application, so will also prevent anything they directly reference from ever being collected.

As a toy example:

static void leakMe(final Object object) {
    new Thread() {
        public void run() {
            Object o = object;
            for (;;) {
                try {
                    sleep(Long.MAX_VALUE);
                } catch (InterruptedException e) {}
            }
        }
    }.start();
}

Call System.gc() all you like, but the object passed to leakMe will never die.

(*edited*)

Answer 4

Probably one of the simplest examples of a potential memory leak, and how to avoid it, is the implementation of ArrayList.remove(int):

public E remove(int index) {
    RangeCheck(index);

    modCount++;
    E oldValue = (E) elementData[index];

    int numMoved = size - index - 1;
    if (numMoved > 0)
        System.arraycopy(elementData, index + 1, elementData, index,
                numMoved);
    elementData[--size] = null; // (!) Let gc do its work

    return oldValue;
}

If you were implementing it yourself, would you have thought to clear the array element that is no longer used (elementData[--size] = null)? That reference might keep a huge object alive ...

Answer 5

I think that a valid example could be using ThreadLocal variables in an environment where threads are pooled.

For instance, using ThreadLocal variables in Servlets to communicate with other web components, having the threads being created by the container and maintaining the idle ones in a pool. ThreadLocal variables, if not correctly cleaned up, will live there until, possibly, the same web component overwrites their values.

Of course, once identified, the problem can be solved easily.

Answer 6

Most examples here are "too complex". They are edge cases. With these examples, the programmer made a mistake (like don't redefining equals/hashcode), or has been bitten by a corner case of the JVM/JAVA (load of class with static...). I think that's not the type of example an interviewer want or even the most common case.

But there are really simpler cases for memory leaks. The garbage collector only frees what is no longer referenced. We as Java developers don't care about memory. We allocate it when needed and let it be freed automatically. Fine.

But any long-lived application tend to have shared state. It can be anything, statics, singletons... Often non-trivial applications tend to make complex objects graphs. Just forgetting to set a reference to null or more often forgetting to remove one object from a collection is enough to make a memory leak.

Of course all sort of listeners (like UI listeners), caches, or any long-lived shared state tend to produce memory leak if not properly handled. What shall be understood is that this is not a Java corner case, or a problem with the garbage collector. It is a design problem. We design that we add a listener to a long-lived object, but we don't remove the listener when no longer needed. We cache objects, but we have no strategy to remove them from the cache.

We maybe have a complex graph that store the previous state that is needed by a computation. But the previous state is itself linked to the state before and so on.

Like we have to close SQL connections or files. We need to set proper references to null and remove elements from the collection. We shall have proper caching strategies (maximum memory size, number of elements, or timers). All objects that allow a listener to be notified must provide both a addListener and removeListener method. And when these notifiers are no longer used, they must clear their listener list.

A memory leak is indeed truly possible and is perfectly predictable. No need for special language features or corner cases. Memory leaks are either an indicator that something is maybe missing or even of design problems.