RFR: JDK-8227021: VM fails if any sun.boot.library.path paths are longer than JVM_MAXPATHLEN
Adam Farley8
adam.farley at uk.ibm.com
Wed Aug 21 11:15:00 UTC 2019
Hi David,
Done.
Best Regards
Adam Farley
IBM Runtimes
David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote on 21/08/2019 08:23:35:
> From: David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
> To: Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>
> Cc: coleen.phillimore at oracle.com, hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Date: 21/08/2019 08:24
> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8227021: VM fails if any sun.boot.library.path
> paths are longer than JVM_MAXPATHLEN
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> Updates look good. One further style nit I missed: In all // comments in
> the test e.g.
>
> //Grab any path.
>
> please add a space after //
>
> No need for updated webrev.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> On 20/08/2019 11:13 pm, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Good advice. Changes made as requested.
> >
> > Webrev: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> u=http-3A__cr.openjdk.java.net_-7Eafarley_8227021.6_webrev_&d=DwID-
> g&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-
> CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=Ewqm4OWSpgtC3ZFW8QrQKu-
> maZKVWs4bwiF5e-YtNd8&s=jedS6glfOqiOmvn0kk9366V_Lxy5nIFk7LsnVZhMoMc&e=
> >
> > Does anyone have further concerns or changes to propose?
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Adam Farley
> > IBM Runtimes
> >
> >
> > David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote on 20/08/2019 12:55:26:
> >
> >> From: David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
> >> To: Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>,
coleen.phillimore at oracle.com
> >> Cc: hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net
> >> Date: 20/08/2019 12:55
> >> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8227021: VM fails if any sun.boot.library.path
> >> paths are longer than JVM_MAXPATHLEN
> >>
> >> Hi Adam,
> >>
> >> On 20/08/2019 1:21 am, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> >> > Hi Coleen, David,
> >> >
> >> > Here's the new webrev: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> >> u=http-3A__cr.openjdk.java.net_-7Eafarley_8227021.5_webrev_&d=DwID-
> >> g&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-
> >>
>
CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=zaU5bibnUdHVncMttyVGbYf1yzDRUt26f9raqqKlJm0&s=QPe5l0tueNKISo62mJJ2RdRLUg_LsrhapCgVNJ0W3yQ&e=
> >>
> >> In this comment:
> >>
> >> ! * in use, you can pass the length of that in n, to ensure
> >> ! * we detect if any path exceeds the maximum path length
> >> ! * once prepended onto the sub-path/file name.
> >> * It is the callers responsibility to:
> >> * a> check the value of n, and n may be 0.
> >>
> >> the three references to 'n' should be to the new
file_name_lengthparameter.
> >>
> >> Looking at the test:
> >>
> >> 2 * Copyright (c) 2019, 2019, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All
> >> rights reserved.
> >>
> >> For a new file there is only a single year specified so this should
be:
> >>
> >> 2 * Copyright (c) 2019, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights
> >> reserved.
> >>
> >> 31 * @run main TestSunBootLibraryPath
> >>
> >> As this just launches another VM it is more efficient to use
> "@run driver".
> >>
> >> 35 import java.lang.IllegalArgumentException;
> >>
> >> Nit: java.lang.* is implicitly imported.
> >>
> >> 39 static String expectedErrorMessage =("The VM tried to use a
> >> path that exceeds the maximum path length for "
> >> 40 + "this system. Review
> >> path-containing parameters and properties, such as "
> >> 41 + "sun.boot.library.path, to
> >> identify potential sources for this path.");
> >>
> >> Nit: no need for parentheses.
> >>
> >> Probably also no need to check for the entire message - the first
line
> >> should suffice.
> >>
> >> 48 //Add enough characters to make it "too long".
> >> 49 for (int i = 0 ; i < tooLongPathSize ; i++)
tooLongPath
> >> += "a";
> >>
> >> This can be done more efficiently and succinctly as:
> >>
> >> tooLongPath += "a".repeat(5000);
> >>
> >> There's probably an even better way. :)
> >>
> >> 60 throw new java.lang.IllegalArgumentException("Test
was
> >> launched with an invalid argument.");
> >>
> >> No need to specify "java.lang".
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> David
> >> -----
> >>
> >> > I made the requested changes, and moved the null check as
suggested.
> >> >
> >> > (I agree passing a null for any of these values would be odd, and
> >> > unlikely to be done on purpose.)
> >> >
> >> > It also includes a new jtreg test for this change, which uses
> ProcessTools.
> >> >
> >> > Let me know what you think (inc Serguei + others).
> >> >
> >> > Best Regards
> >> >
> >> > Adam Farley
> >> > IBM Runtimes
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote on 16/08/2019 23:59:53:
> >> >
> >> >> From: coleen.phillimore at oracle.com
> >> >> To: Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>
> >> >> Cc: David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>, hotspot-
> dev at openjdk.java.net
> >> >> Date: 17/08/2019 00:00
> >> >> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8227021: VM fails if any
sun.boot.library.path
> >> >> paths are longer than JVM_MAXPATHLEN
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >> On 8/16/19 7:35 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> >> >> Hi Coleen,
> >> >>
> >> >> To confirm your suspicions, I didn't see your responses. No
> >> offence intended.
> >> >>
> >> >> I send a lot of mail so I'm sure I can be caught in people's
> spamfilter. :)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Responses below.
> >> >>
> >> >> Best Regards
> >> >>
> >> >> Adam Farley
> >> >> IBM Runtimes
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote on 15/08/2019 13:42:51:
> >> >>
> >> >> > From: coleen.phillimore at oracle.com
> >> >> > To: hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net, Adam Farley8
> >> >> > <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
> >> >> > Date: 15/08/2019 13:43
> >> >> > Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8227021: VM fails if any
sun.boot.library.path
> >> >> > paths are longer than JVM_MAXPATHLEN
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi Adam, David noticed that my code review replies only went
to the
> >> >> > mailing list. So here it is again.
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > Coleen
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 8/13/19 5:29 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On 8/13/19 11:48 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> >> >> > >> Hi David,
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Since we have two positive reviews (yours and
> Serguei's), could you
> >> >> > >> sponsor the change please?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > If you get two positive reviews, but then one with
> comments, you need
> >> >> > > to also answer that third reviews. I had some comments on
your
> >> >> > > change, which I'll repeat here:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> >> >> > u=http-3A__cr.openjdk.java.net_-7Eafarley_8227021.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>
2_webrev_src_hotspot_share_runtime_os.cpp.frames.html&d=DwIDaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
> >> >> > siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-
> >> >> > CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=wjd3KxxgFQv49yjlb4Bndy-
> >> >> >
F1XV4pbuPZrmemiaFthA&s=xXwflqvuzoEhcREhr-x7rNMVDeroZ8Xh1LnW6NytumE&e=
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > This is code is unnecessarily hard to read and understand:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 1329 char** os::split_path(const char* path, size_t* n) {
> >> >> > > 1330 size_t pathmod = (size_t)0;
> >> >> > > 1331 if (n != NULL) {
> >> >> > > 1332 pathmod = *n;
> >> >> > > 1333 }
> >> >> > > 1334 *n = (size_t)0;
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > It appears that 'n' is both an input and output parameter of
this
> >> >> > > function. Can you just make it another input parameter with
some
> >> >> > > descriptive name. Is it the length of the library name
> that you're
> >> >> > > looking for? "pathmod" is huh?
> >> >>
> >> >> The 'n' is both an input and an output, yes.
> >> >>
> >> >> I could make it another input parameter, but that means modifying
the
> >> >> method signature. This seemed unnecessary, given that we have an
input
> >> >> vector we're not using for anything.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's not a big deal to add a parameter, especially since there's
> >> >> only one call site, and the names don't have to be squished up C
names.
> >> >>
> >> >> How about: char** split_path(char* path, size_t file_length,
> >> >> size_t* elements) ?
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The 'n' input is used as a modifier for the length of the path,
as
> >> >> mentioned in the comment. I called it "pathmod" because it's a
PATH
> >> >> length MODIFIER. I couldn't think of a better name that's also
concise.
> >> >> Would pathlenmod be better? Pathsizemod sounds like we're
> making the path
> >> >> physically bigger, or maybe that's just me. :)
> >> >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Then you don't have to check if someone has passed NULL.
> There's only
> >> >> > > one caller to this from what I see.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not sure I understand this. We'd still need to check for
> null, even if
> >> >> the pathmod has its own input parameter. I believe adding a
> NULL to an int
> >> >> causes a segmentation error at runtime.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you're saying the null check isn't needed because we can
> >> ensure anon-null
> >> >> is passed in via the only place we call split_path, I disagree
> >> that this is a
> >> >> future-proof assumption. A null check seems prudent here.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think the function doesn't make any sense if you pass an output
> >> >> parameter as NULL. Or at worst you could add it to the line:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1335 if (path == NULL || strlen(path) == 0 || n == NULL) {
> >> >> 1336 return NULL;
> >> >> 1337 }
> >> >> 1334 *n = (size_t)0;
> >> >>
> >> >> But that's just weird. Why would a caller pass a non-null path
and
> >> >> not want the element count?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Coleen
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 1352 char** opath = (char**) NEW_C_HEAP_ARRAY(char*, count,
> >> >> > > mtInternal);
> >> >> > > 1353 if (opath == NULL) {
> >> >> > > 1354 return NULL;
> >> >> > > 1355 }
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Not your change but this calls vm_exit_out_of_memory() if
> >> >> > > NEW_C_HEAP_ARRAY fails. It doesn't return NULL so you
> don't have to
> >> >> > > check.
> >> >>
> >> >> Seems legit. I'll include this in the .5 version once we have
> consensus on
> >> >> the other changes. Good spot.
> >> >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 1375 char* s = (char*)NEW_C_HEAP_ARRAY(char, len + 1,
> >> mtInternal);
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Here you want to use NEW_C_HEAP_ARRAY_RETURN_NULL so you
> cancheck for
> >> >> > > null and free memory.
> >> >>
> >> >> Good idea. Noted for .5.
> >> >>
> >> >> Let me know your thoughts on the other points above.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The rest seems okay.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > thanks,
> >> >> > > Coleen
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Best Regards
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Adam Farley
> >> >> > >> IBM Runtimes
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote on 12/08/
> 2019 23:32:14:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>> From: David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
> >> >> > >>> To: Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>
> >> >> > >>> Cc: hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net,
"serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com"
> >> >> > >>> <serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com>
> >> >> > >>> Date: 12/08/2019 23:32
> >> >> > >>> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8227021: VM fails if any
> sun.boot.library.path
> >> >> > >>> paths are longer than JVM_MAXPATHLEN
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> Looks fine.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> Thanks,
> >> >> > >>> David
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> On 13/08/2019 1:19 am, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> >> >> > >>>> Hi David,
> >> >> > >>>>
> >> >> > >>>> Changes made as requested:
> >> >> > >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> >> >> > >>>
u=http-3A__cr.openjdk.java.net_-7Eafarley_8227021.4_webrev&d=DwID-
> >> >> > >>> g&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>
CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=mZM8IR4e_zmrfcsF3XJjoGEMrZb4WtEL7Y6Ugd6Naqg&s=sZ2UKqqUIq0El-
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>> RsqYz6jmTh4Q2UghwdrQX6of8Lw0E&e=
> >> >> > >>>> Best Regards
> >> >> > >>>>
> >> >> > >>>> Adam Farley
> >> >> > >>>> IBM Runtimes
> >> >> > >>>>
> >> >> > >>>>
> >> >> > >>>> David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote on 12/08/
> >> 2019 04:55:36:
> >> >> > >>>>
> >> >> > >>>>> From: David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
> >> >> > >>>>> To: Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>,
> >> >> > >>>>> "serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com" <serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com>
> >> >> > >>>>> Cc: hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net
> >> >> > >>>>> Date: 12/08/2019 04:56
> >> >> > >>>>> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8227021: VM fails if any
> >> sun.boot.library.path
> >> >> > >>>>> paths are longer than JVM_MAXPATHLEN
> >> >> > >>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>> Hi Adam,
> >> >> > >>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>> On 10/08/2019 2:47 am, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> >> >> > >>>>>> Hi Serguei, David,
> >> >> > >>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>> My turn to apologise for the delay. :)
> >> >> > >>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>> I've modified the code as per Serguei's request.
> Take alook and
> >> >> > >> let me
> >> >> > >>>>>> know if this is the sort of thing you were thinking of.
> >> >> > >>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>> Webrev: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> >> >> > >>>>> u=http-3A__cr.openjdk.java.net_-7Eafarley_8227021.
> 3_webrev_&d=DwID-
> >> >> > >>>>> g&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-
> >> >> > >>>>> CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=8Wa8Zdfmvn-
> >> >> > >>>>>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>
yvzvCAhOyJ_etFblRA4vmLGbKF4aW8PY&s=L19aeFXoR9JIO62QRPFzZObIU8RbhpCtXSvUibD2ISk&e=
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>>>> I'd prefer to see the helper just as a file static
> function rather
> >> >> > >> than
> >> >> > >>>>> adding it to the os class.
> >> >> > >>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>> + * supplied array of arrays of chars (a), where n
> >> >> > >>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>> I assume (a) is meant to refer to the parameter, but
> you actually
> >> >> > >> called
> >> >> > >>>>> it arrayarray. I think "a" or "arr" would suffice.
> >> >> > >>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>> Thanks,
> >> >> > >>>>> David
> >> >> > >>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>> Best Regards
> >> >> > >>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>> Adam Farley
> >> >> > >>>>>> IBM Runtimes
> >> >> > >>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>> "serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com"
> >> <serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com> wrote on
> >> >> > >>>>>> 31/07/2019 17:18:05:
> >> >> > >>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> From: "serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com"
> <serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> To: Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>, David
Holmes
> >> >> > >>>>>>> <david.holmes at oracle.com>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Cc: serviceability-dev
<serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net>,
> >> >> > >>>>>>> hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Date: 31/07/2019 17:18
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8227021: VM fails if any
> >> >> > >> sun.boot.library.path
> >> >> > >>>>>>> paths are longer than JVM_MAXPATHLEN
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Hi Adam,
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> It looks Okay to me.
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> A couple of minor comments.
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> >> >> > >>>>> u=http-3A__cr.openjdk.java.net_-7Eafarley_8227021.
> >> >> > >>>>> 2_webrev_src_hotspot_&d=DwID-g&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
> >> >> > >>>>> siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-
> CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=8Wa8Zdfmvn-
> >> >> > >>>>>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>
yvzvCAhOyJ_etFblRA4vmLGbKF4aW8PY&s=NL6tYuwwDod3DSmj-1ztxAywpO8L52HEyO0wvTR05bs&e=
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> share/runtime/os.cpp.frames.html
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1362 //release allocated storage before exiting
the vm
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1363 while (i > 0) {
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1364 i--;
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1365 if (opath[i] != NULL) {
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1366 FREE_C_HEAP_ARRAY(char, opath[i]);
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1367 }
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1368 }
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1369 FREE_C_HEAP_ARRAY(char*, opath);
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1377 //release allocated storage before returning
null
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1378 while (i > 0) {
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1379 i--;
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1380 if (opath[i] != NULL) {
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1381 FREE_C_HEAP_ARRAY(char, opath[i]);
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1382 }
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1383 }
> >> >> > >>>>>>> 1384 FREE_C_HEAP_ARRAY(char*, opath);
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> This duplicated fragments is worth to refactor to
> a function.
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Also a space is missed at the beginning of the
comment.
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Serguei
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> On 7/31/19 02:01, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Hi All,
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Reviewers requested for the change below.
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> @David - Agreed. Would you be prepared to sponsor
> the change?
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Bug: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> >> >> > >>>>>
u=https-3A__bugs.openjdk.java.net_browse_JDK-2D8227021&d=DwID-
> >> >> > >>>>> g&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-
> >> >> > >>>>> CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=8Wa8Zdfmvn-
> >> >> > >>>>>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>
yvzvCAhOyJ_etFblRA4vmLGbKF4aW8PY&s=xykJ0KLy9AKWO8zmC0amfR7xxUsvyKEjlf3y7WWOqvE&e=
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Webrev: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> >> >> > >>>>> u=http-3A__cr.openjdk.java.net_-7Eafarley_8227021.
> 2_webrev_&d=DwID-
> >> >> > >>>>> g&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-
> >> >> > >>>>> CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=8Wa8Zdfmvn-
> >> >> > >>>>>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>
yvzvCAhOyJ_etFblRA4vmLGbKF4aW8PY&s=NvIza4VVWG3CiDhmQVmXsghH_4h_c5mFJbHwkCUcut0&e=
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Best Regards
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Adam Farley
> >> >> > >>>>>>> IBM Runtimes
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> P.S. Remembered to add the links this time. :)
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote on
30/07/2019
> >> >> > >> 03:37:53:
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> From: David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> To: Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> Cc: hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net, serviceability-dev
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> <serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> Date: 30/07/2019 03:38
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8227021: VM fails if any
> >> >> > >> sun.boot.library.path
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> paths are longer than JVM_MAXPATHLEN
> >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> Hi Adam,
> >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> On 25/07/2019 3:57 am, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> >> >> > >>>>>>>>> Hi David,
> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>>>> Welcome back. :)
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> Thanks. Sorry for the delay in getting back to this.
> >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> I like .v2 as it is much simpler (notwithstanding
freeing
> >> >> > >>> the already
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> allocated arrays adds some complexity - thanks for
> >> fixing that).
> >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> I'm still not sure we can't optimise things better
for
> >> >> > >> unchangeable
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> properties like the boot libary path, but that's
> another RFE.
> >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> >> > >>>>>>>> David
> >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
> >> >> > >>>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and
> >> Wales with
> >> >> > >>>>>>> number 741598.
> >> >> > >>>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour,
Portsmouth,
> >> >> > >>> Hampshire PO6 3AU
> >> >> > >>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
> >> >> > >>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and
> >> Wales with
> >> >> > >> number
> >> >> > >>>>>> 741598.
> >> >> > >>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour,
Portsmouth,
> >> >> > >>> Hampshire PO6 3AU
> >> >> > >>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
> >> >> > >>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England
> and Wales with
> >> >> > >> number
> >> >> > >>>> 741598.
> >> >> > >>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
> >> Hampshire PO6
> >> >> > >> 3AU
> >> >> > >> Unless stated otherwise above:
> >> >> > >> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and
> >> Wales with number
> >> >> > >> 741598.
> >> >> > >> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour,
Portsmouth, Hampshire
> >> >> > >> PO6 3AU
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Unless stated otherwise above:
> >> >> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> >> >> number 741598.
> >> >> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
> Hampshire PO6 3AU
> >> > Unless stated otherwise above:
> >> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
number
> >> > 741598.
> >> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
> Hampshire PO6 3AU
> >>
> >
> > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
number
> > 741598.
> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
>
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
More information about the hotspot-dev
mailing list