RFR: 8210471: GZIPInputStream constructor could leak an un-end()ed Inflater [v2]

[Jaikiran Pai]

On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:32:22 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <jpai at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the issue noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8210471?
>> 
>> `java.util.zip.Inflater` when instantiated will hold on the native resources which are freed only when `Inflater.end()` is called. The constructor of `java.util.zip.GZIPInputStream` instantiates an `Inflater` for its internal use. After instantiating the `Inflater`, the `GZIPInputStream` constructor before returning from the constructor, can run into either a `IllegalArgumentException` (because the `size` is `<=0`) or an `IOException` when trying to read a GZIP header from the underlying `InputStream`. In either of these cases, the `Inflater` that the `GZIPInputStream` created internally will end up leaking and the caller has no way to `end()` that `Inflater` or even knowledge of that `Inflater`.
>> 
>> The commit in this PR catches the `IOException` when reading the GZIP header and `end()`s the `Inflater`. Furthermore, to prevent instantiation of an `Inflater`, the `GZIPInputStream` constructor before calling `super(...)` will now check the `InputStream` to be non-null and `size` to be `>0`, both of which were being done by the `super` constructor.
>> 
>> Given the nature of the change, no new test has been added. Existing tests in `test/jdk/java/util/zip` continue to pass and tier1, tier2 and tier3 testing is in progress.
>
> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   introduce a basic test for GZIPInputStream

> Given the nature of the change, no new test has been added.

I noticed that the `GZIPInputStream` doesn't have any basic tests (at least) for its constructors, so I went ahead and added one which verifies the expected exceptions are thrown from the constructor.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19475#issuecomment-2139463615