[PATCH] Windows 32-bit DLL name decoration
Alexey Ivanov
alexey.ivanov at oracle.com
Fri Dec 7 19:09:45 UTC 2018
Hi Andrew,
Sorry for my belated reply.
Yes, it's also an option… however, this solution seems to be
overcomplicated to export one function or two. The calling convention of
exported functions for JVM cannot be changed, they can be called from
third-party software.
If the function is used internally-only, its calling convention can be
changed as long as all components are updated.
Thank you for the pointer to another approach used to handle name
decorations of __stdcall functions. It looks we have to work out a
common approach to this problem.
Regards,
Alexey
On 27/11/2018 18:49, Andrew Luo wrote:
> By the way, in hotspot we are generating a .def file dynamically while keeping the JNICALL calling convention (for symbols such as JNI_CreateJavaVM) I believe (just by looking through the code in http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/44fe5fab538a/make/hotspot/lib/JvmMapfile.gmk, unless this code is inactive - someone who knows this area better than me might want to comment...). Shouldn't the same approach be taken here as well?
>
> Thanks
> Andrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net> On Behalf Of Ali Ince
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 2:08 PM
> To: Alexey Ivanov <alexey.ivanov at oracle.com>; build-dev <build-dev at openjdk.java.net>; core-libs <core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Windows 32-bit DLL name decoration
>
> Hi Alexey,
>
> I don’t have an account on JBS as I’m not an author yet, my OCA has just been processed. Would it be possible for someone with an author status to create an issue?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ali
>
>> On 19 Nov 2018, at 12:12, Alexey Ivanov <alexey.ivanov at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ali,
>>
>> The fix looks good to me provided it resolves your problem.
>> I am not a reviewer so you'll have to get OK from reviewers, likely from build-dev and from core-libs.
>>
>> Have you submitted the issue in JBS?
>>
>> You have to sign OCA to be able to contribute to OpenJDK:
>> https://openjdk.java.net/contribute/
>> and also
>> https://openjdk.java.net/sponsor/
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alexey
>>
>> On 18/11/2018 12:07, Ali İnce wrote:
>>> Hi Alexey,
>>>
>>> Below is a new patch content that removes JNICALL modifiers from the exported functions of interest. This results in exported functions not to be name decorated and use __cdecl calling convention.
>>>
>>> Do you have any more suggestions, or would you please guide me on next steps?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ali
>>>
>>> # HG changeset patch
>>> # User Ali Ince <ali.ince at gmail.com>
>>> # Date 1542542415 0
>>> # Sun Nov 18 12:00:15 2018 +0000
>>> # Node ID a41df44e13e1b761f4b3f05a17ed18953067ae39
>>> # Parent 16d5ec7dbbb49ef3f969e34be870e3f917ea89ff
>>> Remove JNICALL modifiers to prevent name decoration on 32-bit windows
>>> builds
>>>
>>> diff -r 16d5ec7dbbb4 -r a41df44e13e1 src/jdk.jdi/share/native/libdt_shmem/shmemBack.c
>>> --- a/src/jdk.jdi/share/native/libdt_shmem/shmemBack.c Tue Aug 14 14:28:23 2018 +0200
>>> +++ b/src/jdk.jdi/share/native/libdt_shmem/shmemBack.c Sun Nov 18 12:00:15 2018 +0000
>>> @@ -339,7 +339,7 @@
>>> return JDWPTRANSPORT_ERROR_NONE; } -JNIEXPORT jint JNICALL
>>> +JNIEXPORT jint
>>> jdwpTransport_OnLoad(JavaVM *vm, jdwpTransportCallback* cbTablePtr,
>>> jint version, jdwpTransportEnv** result) {
>>> diff -r 16d5ec7dbbb4 -r a41df44e13e1 src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/include/jdwpTransport.h
>>> --- a/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/include/jdwpTransport.h Tue Aug 14 14:28:23 2018 +0200
>>> +++ b/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/include/jdwpTransport.h Sun Nov 18 12:00:15 2018 +0000
>>> @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@
>>> void (*free)(void *buffer); /* Call this for all deallocations */
>>> } jdwpTransportCallback;
>>> -typedef jint (JNICALL *jdwpTransport_OnLoad_t)(JavaVM *jvm,
>>> +typedef jint (*jdwpTransport_OnLoad_t)(JavaVM *jvm,
>>> jdwpTransportCallback *callback,
>>> jint version,
>>> jdwpTransportEnv**
>>> env); diff -r 16d5ec7dbbb4 -r a41df44e13e1 src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c
>>> --- a/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c Tue Aug 14 14:28:23 2018 +0200
>>> +++ b/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c Sun Nov 18 12:00:15 2018 +0000
>>> @@ -1019,7 +1019,7 @@
>>> return JDWPTRANSPORT_ERROR_NONE; } -JNIEXPORT jint JNICALL
>>> +JNIEXPORT jint
>>> jdwpTransport_OnLoad(JavaVM *vm, jdwpTransportCallback* cbTablePtr,
>>> jint version, jdwpTransportEnv** env) {
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 16 Nov 2018, at 23:03, Alexey Ivanov <alexey.ivanov at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ali,
>>>>
>>>> It's exactly what I referred to.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it does change the calling convention.
>>>> Yet it's not a (big) problem because both parties will use the same calling convention.
>>>>
>>>> Using a DLL from another build will not be possible. But it's not a good idea to do so anyway.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mapfiles and export options have been removed by https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200178 to simplify managing exported functions. So that to add or remove an exported function, you don't have modify makefiles and/or mapfiles. You just edit the source files.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alexey
>>>>
>>>> On 16/11/2018 22:42, Ali İnce wrote:
>>>>> Hi Alexey,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will definitely give it a try though I’m not sure if that’ll be a breaking change. This is because JNICALL modifier is defined to be __stdcall on windows which is both specified on jdwpTransport_OnLoad exported functions both for dt_socket.dll and dt_shmem.dll.
>>>>>
>>>>> The __stdcall is ignored on x64 platforms and also name decoration is not applied (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/cpp/build/reference/decorated-names?view=vs-2017). I believe that’s why we don’t experience any problems on x64 builds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Removing JNICALL (thus __stdcall) modifier (apparently only applies to x86 builds) will result in the calling convention to be changed, and thus will change how parameters are ordered and also the stack cleanup rules. I think this may result in problems in programs that are designed to load shared libraries and its exported functions at runtime (not bound by link time which probably won’t cause any issues - assuming that they use the shared function signature) - as in https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-jdk11u/blob/5f01925b80ed851b133ee26fbcb07026ac04149e/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libjdwp/transport.c#L99.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ali
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15 Nov 2018, at 22:14, Alexey Ivanov <alexey.ivanov at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Ali,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can the issue be resolved by using different call modifiers on the affected functions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some build / link issues were resolved by adding / removing
>>>>>> JNICALL modifier, see
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8201226
>>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2018-April/021553
>>>>>> .html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202476
>>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2018-May/021913.h
>>>>>> tml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Alexey
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/11/2018 21:43, Ali İnce wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An issue (https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-build/issues/709) raised against AdoptOpenJDK jdk11 32-bit windows builds led us to the name decoration problem on built 32-bit dlls - specifically dt_socket.dll and dt_shmem.dll. Whereas 64-bit MSVC builds don’t apply any name decorations on exported functions, 32-bit builds apply them - which requires either def files or /export flags to be specified on the linker arguments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although the expected linker arguments were present on previous jdk makefiles, they were removed in jdk11 makefiles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Below is the proposed patch, which can also be browsed at https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-jdk11u/pull/1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you please have a look and let me know of any points I may have missed (I don’t have any background information about why the export flags were removed in jdk11)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ali
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/make/lib/Lib-jdk.jdi.gmk b/make/lib/Lib-jdk.jdi.gmk
>>>>>>> index 197b95c2e2..ac6ebf5591 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/make/lib/Lib-jdk.jdi.gmk
>>>>>>> +++ b/make/lib/Lib-jdk.jdi.gmk
>>>>>>> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), windows)
>>>>>>> jdk.jdwp.agent:include \
>>>>>>> jdk.jdwp.agent:libjdwp/export, \
>>>>>>> LDFLAGS := $(LDFLAGS_JDKLIB), \
>>>>>>> + LDFLAGS_windows := -export:jdwpTransport_OnLoad, \
>>>>>>> LIBS := $(JDKLIB_LIBS), \
>>>>>>> ))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/make/lib/Lib-jdk.jdwp.agent.gmk
>>>>>>> b/make/lib/Lib-jdk.jdwp.agent.gmk index 0bc93e0d35..0382e55325
>>>>>>> 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/make/lib/Lib-jdk.jdwp.agent.gmk
>>>>>>> +++ b/make/lib/Lib-jdk.jdwp.agent.gmk
>>>>>>> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ $(eval $(call SetupJdkLibrary, BUILD_LIBDT_SOCKET, \
>>>>>>> libjdwp/export, \
>>>>>>> LDFLAGS := $(LDFLAGS_JDKLIB) \
>>>>>>> $(call SET_SHARED_LIBRARY_ORIGIN), \
>>>>>>> + LDFLAGS_windows := -export:jdwpTransport_OnLoad, \
>>>>>>> LIBS_linux := -lpthread, \
>>>>>>> LIBS_solaris := -lnsl -lsocket, \
>>>>>>> LIBS_windows := $(JDKLIB_LIBS) ws2_32.lib, \
More information about the build-dev
mailing list