RFR(XS): 8165881 - Backout JDK-8164913

[Yasumasa Suenaga]

Hi,

I could reproduce and I added a comment to JBS:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165869?focusedCommentId=14000623&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14000623

In case of BasicTests.java, I think it is a test bug.
If it is accepted, I will upload webrev for this redo task.
However, I cannot access (and fix) Oracle internal test. Can someone help me?
(I cannot access JPRT. So I need a sponsor.)


Thanks,

Yasumasa


On 2016/09/13 9:00, David Holmes wrote:
> I think I see the problem. The attach framework tries to load the "instrument" agent library. Prior to 8164913 if this fails it actually appears to succeed. Now it fails, and that error propagates through. I'm guessing, at the moment, that the failure is due to a missing module related option.
>
> David
>
> On 13/09/2016 9:54 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Yasumasa,
>>
>> On 13/09/2016 9:23 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Hmm, it has been backouted...
>>>
>>> I agree to David. This error seems to be a test bug.
>>> Can you share the test? I want to evaluate it.
>>
>> Sorry we can't share the tests. I took a quick look and it seems it may
>> be related to the result code parsing (that I thought we ended up not
>> touching!).
>>
>> Can you run a test of HotSpotVirtualMachine.loadAgent(null) and see what
>> happens? We see AgentLoadException from the code that internally tries
>> to load the "instrument" agent:
>>
>> Exception in thread "main" Failure: Unexpected exception during test
>> execution: java.lang.InternalError: instrument library is missing in
>> target VM
>> ...
>> Caused by: java.lang.InternalError: instrument library is missing in
>> target VM
>> ...
>> Caused by: com.sun.tools.attach.AgentLoadException: Failed to load agent
>> library
>>
>>
>>> I do not agree to fix this bug in JDK 10 because VM might lie when the
>>> JVMTI agent could not be attached. IMHO this bug should be fixed in 9
>>> GA, and we should fix testcase(s).
>>
>> I agree. It has to be noted that "we" failed to run all the appropriate
>> tests before pushing this, which would have discovered the problem -
>> assuming it is actually a problem with the change and not an unrelated
>> issue in our testing environment.
>>
>> Unfortunately I have some high priority tasks to handle right now, so I
>> can't go into this in any more depth at the moment.
>>
>> David
>> -----
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Yasumasa
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2016/09/13 6:15, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> For the record it looks like the tests involved are broken, in that
>>>> because the VM used to lie about the success of attaching the agent, the
>>>> tests expected different exceptions to occur.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On 13/09/2016 3:11 AM, harold seigel wrote:
>>>>> Looks good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Harold
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/2016 1:05 PM, Christian Tornqvist wrote:
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review this (clean) backout of the change for JDK-8164913, it
>>>>>> failed
>>>>>> several tests in the nightly testing. The failures are tracked in:
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165869
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Webrev:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ctornqvi/webrev/8165881/webrev.00/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bug:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165881
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>