RFR(S): 8034087: XML parser may overwrite element content if that content falls onto the border of an entity scanner buffer

[huizhe wang]

Hi Volker,

I agree with the approach below and jdk9/dev is the better forest.

For the test itself, I would suggest reducing the following loop to 1 or 
2 cases:

         for (int i = 0; i < testString.length(); i++) {
             test(createDocument(testString.toString(), i), ""+ i);
         }


when i=7, the problem starts to show. It's sufficient to demonstrate the 
issue then by just entering 7. It's unnecessary to run the test 43 times.


Thanks,
Joe

On 2/11/2014 9:00 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> you're right. I initially didn't saw the test because I just looked at
> the change in the jaxp repository.
>
> If it will be approved, I'll put the test in the same directory like
> the other test (i.e. test/javax/xml/jaxp/parsers/8027359).
>
> And yes, my plan was to get approval for both, the tests and the fix,
> when asking for the permission to downport to jdk8u-dev and jdk7u-dev.
>
> Thanks,
> Volker
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 11/02/2014 14:57, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> after opening this bug yesterday for an issue found by my colleague
>>> Steffen Schreiber we realized that this is actually a duplicate of
>>> "8027359: XML parser returns incorrect parsing results"
>>> (https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8027359).
>>>
>>> While there's no need now to submit a patch anymore,  we'd
>>> nevertheless like to contribute at least our test case for this issue:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8034087/
>>>
>>> The webrev is against jdk9-client but we'd like to also downport this
>>> test to jdk7 and jdk8 to track that the fix for 8027359 will be
>>> correctly downported to these releases as well.
>>>
>>> I will sponsor this change if somebody would be so kind to review it.
>>>
>> I'll leave it to Joe Wang to comment on the test but just to mention that
>> jdk9/dev is probably a better forest to aim for because that is where the
>> XML (and its tests) usually go.  Also I wonder if it might be better to put
>> it in the same directory as the test that Joe pushed with the change?
>>
>> If you are getting approval to push to jdk8u-dev and jdk7u-dev then it might
>> be better to request a backport of Joe's change at the same time.
>>
>> -Alan.