RFR(S): JDK-8042155 Tests for stack guard pages have to be cleaned up

[Dmitry Samersoff]

Thanks!


On 2014-05-14 21:12, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> Thumbs up.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> On 5/14/14 3:42 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>> Dan,
>>
>> Fixed (in-place, press shift-reload)
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8042155/webrev.02/
>>
>>>      One thing I did notice is that some of the error messages are
>>>      identical which would make it more difficult for someone
>>>      investigating a future failure to know which failure happened:
>> It shouldn't be an issue because a) test prints banner to stdout with
>> the name of the function it's running b) test terminates after first
>> error
>>
>> -Dmitry
>>
>>
>> On 2014-05-13 21:12, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>> On 5/13/14 4:18 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>>>> Dan,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the review!
>>>>
>>>> 1. I use exit(7) to make the situation when the test fails because of
>>>> some error condition clear visible.
>>>>
>>>> 2. I'm not sure it's a good idea to pass test if compilation fails, but
>>>> I make this changes to handle it the same way as other tests does
>>>>
>>>> 3. Agree with rest of comments. See new webrev.
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8042155/webrev.02/
>>>     test/runtime/StackGuardPages/DoOverflow.java
>>>      No comments.
>>>
>>> test/runtime/StackGuardPages/invoke.c
>>>      I'm good with most of the changes.
>>>
>>>      One thing I did notice is that some of the error messages are
>>>      identical which would make it more difficult for someone
>>>      investigating a future failure to know which failure happened:
>>>
>>>      102     fprintf(stderr, "Test ERROR. Can't load class
>>> DoOverflow\n");
>>>     144     printf("Test ERROR. Can't load class DoOverflow\n");
>>>          You can make them unique by including the function
>>>          name that generated them
>>>
>>>      I just noticed that some error messages still go to stdout,
>>>      e.g., line 144 above.
>>>        Looks like this comment from the first round was also missed
>>>      (the line number is now 243):
>>>
>>>>      line 225: You'll end up here if no arguments are passed or if the
>>>>          wrong arguments are passed. You should have a better usage
>>>>          message, e.g.:
>>>>
>>>>      void usage() {
>>>>          fprintf(stderr, "Usage: invoke test_java_overflow\n");
>>>>          fprintf(stderr, "       invoke test_native_overflow\n");
>>>>          exit(1);
>>>>      }
>>>    
>>> test/runtime/StackGuardPages/testme.sh
>>>      No comments.
>>>
>>> test/runtime/6929067/T.java
>>> test/runtime/6929067/Test6929067.sh
>>> test/runtime/6929067/invoke.c
>>> test/runtime/InitialThreadOverflow/DoOverflow.java
>>> test/runtime/InitialThreadOverflow/invoke.c
>>> test/runtime/InitialThreadOverflow/testme.sh
>>>      No comments on the deleted files.
>>>
>>>   Dan
>>>
>>>> -Dmitry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2014-05-13 01:51, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/14 8:21 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please, review test changes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8042155/webrev.01/
>>>>> test/runtime/StackGuardPages/testme.sh
>>>>>      You need to check the command status after running gcc_cmd
>>>>>      and if it is not zero, then gratuitously pass the test.
>>>>>      Jerry made a similar test fix last week:
>>>>>
>>>>> +if [ $? -ne 0 ] ; then
>>>>> +    echo "Compile failed, Ignoring failed compilation and forcing the
>>>>> test to pass"
>>>>> +    exit 0
>>>>> +fi
>>>>>
>>>>>      This will catch the case where a 64-bit Linux test machine
>>>>>      has a compiler, but not the 32-bit build env.
>>>>>
>>>>> test/runtime/StackGuardPages/DoOverflow.java
>>>>>      No comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> test/runtime/StackGuardPages/invoke.c
>>>>>      line 28:  * than detaching from vm thread and overflow stack once
>>>>> again.
>>>>>          Typo?: 'than detaching' -> 'Then we detach'
>>>>>
>>>>>      line 92: (*_jvm)->AttachCurrentThread(_jvm, (void**)&env, NULL);
>>>>>      line 125: (*_jvm)->AttachCurrentThread(_jvm, (void **)&env,
>>>>> NULL);
>>>>>          What happens if the JNI AttachCurrentThread() call fails?
>>>>>
>>>>>      line 96: printf("Test ERROR. Can't load class DoOverflow\n");
>>>>>      line 102: printf("Test ERROR. Can't find method
>>>>> DoOverflow.printIt\n");
>>>>>      line 129: printf("Test ERROR. Can't load class DoOverflow\n");
>>>>>      line 135: printf("Test ERROR. Can't find method
>>>>> DoOverflow.printAlive\n");
>>>>>      line 192: printf("Test ERROR. Can't create JavaVM\n");
>>>>>      line 224: printf("Test ERROR. Unknown parameter should be
>>>>> test_java_overflow or test_native_overflow\n");
>>>>>          Don't errors usually get printed on stderr?
>>>>>
>>>>>      line 106: (*env)->CallStaticVoidMethod(env, class_id,
>>>>> method_id, NULL);
>>>>>          What happens if this call fails? Other than the intentional
>>>>>          StackOverflowError, but wait, you catch and swallow that
>>>>> error...
>>>>>
>>>>>      line 108: (*_jvm)->DetachCurrentThread(_jvm);
>>>>>      line 150   (*_jvm)->DetachCurrentThread(_jvm);
>>>>>          What happens if this call fails?
>>>>>
>>>>>      line 139: (*env)->CallStaticVoidMethod (env, class_id, method_id,
>>>>> NULL);
>>>>>          What happens if this call fails?
>>>>>
>>>>>      line 153: // For non-initial thread we doesn't unmap
>>>>>          Typo: "we doesn't unmap"
>>>>>             -> "we don't unmap"
>>>>>
>>>>>      line 154: ...same SEGV_ACCERR tring to access it
>>>>>          Typos, perhaps: same SEGV signal trying to access it
>>>>>
>>>>>      line 156: // We have no ways to check this, so bail out, marking
>>>>> test as succeded
>>>>>          Typo: 'no ways' -> 'no way'
>>>>>          Typo: 'as succeded' -> 'as succeeded'
>>>>>
>>>>>      line 157: printf("Test OK. ...
>>>>>      line 171: printf("Test OK. ...
>>>>>          Should "OK" be "PASSED"?
>>>>>
>>>>>      line 168: printf("Test FAILED. Stack guard page is still
>>>>> there\n");
>>>>>          Don't failures usually get printed on stderr?
>>>>>
>>>>>      line 225: You'll end up here if no arguments are passed or if the
>>>>>          wrong arguments are passed. You should have a better usage
>>>>>          message, e.g.:
>>>>>
>>>>>      void usage() {
>>>>>          fprintf(stderr, "Usage: invoke test_java_overflow\n");
>>>>>          fprintf(stderr, "       invoke test_native_overflow\n");
>>>>>          exit(1);
>>>>>      }
>>>>>
>>>>>      I noticed that all the exit() calls pass '7'. Why '7'?
>>>>>
>>>>>      Also, why 'return 0' or 'return 1' instead of 'exit(0)' or
>>>>> 'exit(1)'?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> test/runtime/6929067/T.java
>>>>> test/runtime/6929067/Test6929067.sh
>>>>> test/runtime/6929067/invoke.c
>>>>> test/runtime/InitialThreadOverflow/DoOverflow.java
>>>>> test/runtime/InitialThreadOverflow/invoke.c
>>>>> test/runtime/InitialThreadOverflow/testme.sh
>>>>>      OK I can see why you want to combine the two tests.
>>>>>      I'm guessing that 'InitialThreadOverflow' was
>>>>>      derived from the much older '6929067'...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fix combine tests for 6929067 and 8009062 into single, more
>>>>>> sophisticated test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Dmitry
>>>>>>
>>
> 


-- 
Dmitry Samersoff
Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia
* I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the sources.