Uploaded image for project: 'JDK'
  1. JDK
  2. JDK-6952694

resolve_external_guard() should probably check for deleted_handle()

XMLWordPrintable

    • Icon: Bug Bug
    • Resolution: Not an Issue
    • Icon: P4 P4
    • 9
    • hs18
    • hotspot
    • None
    • generic
    • generic

      This issue came up during code review of the following bug fix:

          6949515 3/3 VM crash when calling GetMethodDeclaringClass

      On May 14, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:

      > On 5/14/2010 8:55 AM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
      >> Dan,
      >>
      >> Change looks good.
      >
      > Thanks!
      >
      >
      >> One question - resolve_external_guard checks for badJNIHandle, should
      >> it also check for deleted_handle()?
      >
      > That's a really good question. The "deleted_handle" stuff was added
      > by this delta:
      >
      > D 1.8 98/04/15 10:24:56 steffen 10 8 00013/00013/00140
      > MRs:
      > COMMENTS:
      >
      >
      > I added resolve_external_guard() via this delta:
      >
      > D 1.21.1.1 00/05/10 16:11:36 dcubed 29 23 00010/00000/00161
      > MRs:
      > COMMENTS:
      > 4324823 - Add resolve_external_guard() support.
      >
      > (Yes, I'm adding a call to a routine I wrote 10 years ago; let the
      > "old" jokes commence...)
      >
      >
      > Fred changed resolve_non_null() to not allow deleted_handle() to
      > be returned via this delta:
      >
      > D 1.26 01/06/14 16:21:55 foliver 34 33 00002/00000/00173
      > MRs:
      > COMMENTS:
      > 4462061: Prevent a JNI handle from being dereferenced after that handle
      > was explicitly deleted, at least in some cases.
      >
      >
      > The "at least in some cases" and my reading of 4462061 make me think
      > that I'd want to make that change separately and with a full round of
      > testing to make sure things didn't unexpectedly regress...
      >
      > Would you be okay if I filed a new bug for that change and did it
      > separately? For this bug fix, I'm still targeting:
      >
      > OpenJDK6 (HSX-16), HSX-17, HSX-18 and now HSX-19
      > I may have to see if the fix needs to go into HSX16.foo
      > or HSX-17.foo also...
      >
      > For the new bug, I will just push it to HSX-19...
      >
      > Does this sound like a good plan?
      >
      > Dan

            coleenp Coleen Phillimore
            dcubed Daniel Daugherty
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:
              Imported:
              Indexed: