RFR (XS) 8027458: VM anonymous classes: wrong context for protected access checks

[harold seigel]

Hi Lois,

Thanks for the review.  Perhaps the change that you suggest could be 
done if and when the verification checks are added.

Thanks, Harold

On 12/3/2013 4:29 PM, Lois Foltan wrote:
>
> Hi Harold,
>
> Overall this looks good.  I do have one concern that is indirectly 
> related to this fix.  I would almost like  to see the code to search 
> up the nested anonymous classes pulled out to a separate inline 
> method.  There now exists a couple instances of recently added 
> verification check that detects an anonymous class and then moves 
> forward with the anonymous class's host class.  Should instead 
> verification always work its way up through the chain of anonymous 
> nested classes?  If yes, then pulling the code to walk up the chain 
> would be beneficial to all.
>
> Thanks,
> Lois
>
>
> On 12/2/2013 4:42 PM, harold seigel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please review this small fix for bug 8027458.  It is based on John 
>> Rose's suggested fix that he attached to the bug report. For 
>> protected access, the fix checks if the current class is an anonymous 
>> class.  If so, it finds the current class's host class and uses the 
>> host class for checking access to a protected method.
>>
>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hseigel/bug_8027458/
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ehseigel/bug_8027458/>
>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8027458
>>
>> The fix was tested with JCK Lang and VM tests, the failing JCK tests 
>> listed in the bug report, jtreg java/lang, java/util, lambda, and 
>> runtime tests, ute quicktests and vm.mlvm.tests, and defmeth tests.
>>
>> Thanks! Harold
>