RFR(S) 8139164: JVM should throw ClassFormatError for non-void methods named <clinit>

[Karen Kinnear]

Ship it.

> On Nov 6, 2015, at 5:36 PM, harold seigel <harold.seigel at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Karen,
> 
> Thanks for the review!
> 
> 1.  The change is in classFileParser.cpp so it should be verifier independent.
My bad. Doh.
> 
> 2.  Done.
> 
> Thanks, Harold
> 
thanks,
Karen

> On 11/6/2015 4:54 PM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
>> Harold,
>> 
>> Looks really good. Thank you for working out so carefully what the backward compatibility constraints were
>> and for the extensive testing!
>> 
>> Questions/comments:
>> 
>> 1. Is there a planned change for the old verifier as well?
>> 
>> 2. classFileParser.cpp line 95:
>> mind saying “to disallow argument and require ACC_STATIC for <clinit> methods”
>> 
>> thanks,
>> Karen
>> 
>>> On Oct 26, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Lois Foltan <lois.foltan at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/26/2015 11:41 AM, harold seigel wrote:
>>>> Hi Lois,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the review.
>>>> 
>>>> Methods that start with "<" but are not named "<clinit>" or "<init>" are not legal method names and are detected quite early in class file parsing by function ClassFileParser::verify_legal_method_name().  That allows the subsequent parsing code to know that any method name starting with "<" must be either a class initializer or object initializer.
>>>> 
>>>> Testing for methods whose names start with "<" but are not "<clinit>" or "<init>" is a distinct issue from this bug and would require its own bug, if need be.
>>> Okay, thanks for pointing that out.  Looks good.
>>> Lois
>>> 
>>>> Thanks, Harold
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/26/2015 9:15 AM, Lois Foltan wrote:
>>>>> Hi Harold,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think this looks good.  I don't see in any of the tests a test for a bogus internal method named something other than <clinit> or <init>.  Can you locate one if it exists or add one since your change is now checking all methods that start with "<", not just ones that are equal to vmSymbols::object_initializer_name().  Would this case pass for class files <= 51?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Lois
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 10/26/2015 8:31 AM, harold seigel wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please review this small change to fix bug 8139164.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Recent proposed JVM-9 Spec changes (JDK-8130682 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130682>) require throwing ClassFormatError exceptions for class file versions >= 51 for methods named <clinit> that have one or more arguments or are not static.  This fix implements that change.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Open webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hseigel/bug_8139164/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> JBS Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8139164
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The fix was tested with JCK Lang, VM, and API java_lang tests, the UTE quick and split verifier tests, and the hotspot, JDK vm, java/io, java/lang, and java/util JTreg tests, and the tests included in this RFR.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks, Harold
>