Hi Mark,
With respect to the test, it seems to do a lot more than just be the
test for the current issue.
Perhaps some javadoc in the test could identify the the important parts
of the test
as opposed to the supporting infrastructure.
If there is more code than is needed for this issue then perhaps the
test should be whittled down
to just what is needed for this issue or should be promoted to a more
general test with a regular name
(not in a subdirectory with the bug number). I think this has been our
direction anyway, to
write tests for the functionality and not only for a specific issue.
Thanks, Roger
On 6/9/2016 10:18 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> IIOPInputStream.java:
>
> - Does adding doPriv overhead to every field access have a noticeable
> impact on performance?
> If most of the fields are accessible or can easily be checked as
> being in the base module,
> I could see trying the access directly and catching the security
> exception to retry with doPriv.
>
> Roger
>
> ps.
>
> There is a newer version of webrev that provides convenient next and
> previous links.
>
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/code-tools/webrev/raw-file/d26c194772db/webrev.ksh
>
>
>
>
> On 6/9/2016 8:57 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
>> Hey Mark,
>>
>> Looks fine. A few comments.
>>
>>> 2291 Class<?> declaredFieldClass =
>>> declaredClassField.getType();
>>> 2292
>>> 2293 if (declaredFieldClass == null) {
>>> 2294 continue;
>>> 2295 }
>> I'm not sure if this check is required. Can getType() return null ?
>>
>> ==
>>
>>> 2833 Field classField;
>>> 2834 classField = c
>>> 2835 .getDeclaredField(fieldName);
>>> 2836 return classField;
>> Could we fold that code down to 'return
>> c.getDeclaredField(fieldName);' ?
>>
>> For the tests :
>> ==
>> ConcurrentHashMapTest.java :
>> you might want to remove the old rmiServerProcess.destroy(),
>> orbdProcess.destroyForcibly() comments.
>> ==
>> HelloClient.java
>> line 157 : s/1000/ONE_SECOND
>>
>> The use of static ports could be one to watch. If we encounter port
>> issues, the test might have to be revisited.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sean.
>>
>> On 08/06/2016 23:18, Mark Sheppard wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>> please oblige and review the following changes
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~msheppar/8146975/jdk9/webrev/
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~msheppar/8146975/jdk9/test/webrev/
>>>
>>> which address the issue raised in
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8146975
>>>
>>> the type checking in inputClassFields and other places failed to
>>> fully allowing for
>>> the processing of return ValueTypes, and hence the getDeclaredField
>>> fails as
>>> "application code" exist on the call stack restricting access. This
>>> leads to a security exception,
>>> which in turn leads to an IllegalArgumentExcetption, the processing
>>> of which failed to allow
>>> for a null object value in the stream.
>>> This has now been rectified, with the getDeclaredField wrapped in a
>>> doPrivileged call.
>>>
>>> regards
>>> Mark
>>
>