RFR: 8149064: Convert TraceProtectionDomainVerification to Unified Logging

[Coleen Phillimore]

Hi Max,

I think this looks fine.  A couple of comments though:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/protectiondomain.02/src/share/vm/classfile/dictionary.hpp.udiff.html

This is preexisting code, which is apparently giving the number of pd 
set.  Not sure what the use is, but could you rename the function 
print_count() and make the output

*!_st_->print_cr("pd set count = #%d", count);*


Maybe it wouldn't look so strange in the log.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/protectiondomain.02/test/runtime/logging/ProtectionDomainVerificationTest.java.html

The test looks like it's missing "Hello.java" but maybe you can use 
Empty.class from ClassLoadUnloadTest.java.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/protectiondomain.02/src/share/vm/classfile/systemDictionary.cpp.udiff.html

You're right, I have a vote for the format - it seems like a more 
compact log would be better:

[0.138s][debug][protectiondomain]  - class loader: a 
'sun/misc/Launcher$AppClassLoader' protection domain: a 
'java/security/ProtectionDomain'  loading: 'java/lang/Object' -> granted

Or at least remove the blank line in the log.

thanks,
Coleen

On 2/22/16 12:17 PM, Max Ockner wrote:
> Please review this conversion of TraceProtectionDomainverification to 
> Unified Logging.
>
> Theres some output that I think should be changed, but I want to see 
> what others think first.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8149064
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/protectiondomain.02/
>
> TraceProtectionDomainVerification is a non-product flag, but the 
> output will now be available in product builds through 
> -Xlog:protectiondomain=debug.
>  - The output is concise. "-version" produces no output, and 
> "Hello.java" produces 27 lines (if level=trace) or fewer. See below.
>  - This change doesn't rely on "#ifndef PRODUCT" and is smaller than 
> most logging changes that we've seen so far.
>  - refworkload shows now significant performance changes.
>
> Tested with jtreg hotspot tests and refworkload.
>
> Here is sample output for a run of Hello.java:
>
> [0.138s][debug][protectiondomain]  - class loader:      a 
> 'sun/misc/Launcher$AppClassLoader'
> [0.138s][debug][protectiondomain]  - protection domain: a 
> 'java/security/ProtectionDomain'
> [0.138s][debug][protectiondomain]  - loading: 'java/lang/Object'
> [0.139s][debug][protectiondomain]  -> granted
> [0.139s][debug][protectiondomain]
> [0.139s][trace][protectiondomain] pd set = #1
> [0.139s][debug][protectiondomain] Checking package access
> [0.139s][debug][protectiondomain]  - class loader:      a 
> 'sun/misc/Launcher$AppClassLoader'
> [0.139s][debug][protectiondomain]  - protection domain: a 
> 'java/security/ProtectionDomain'
> [0.139s][debug][protectiondomain]  - loading: 'java/lang/String'
> [0.139s][debug][protectiondomain]  -> granted
> [0.139s][debug][protectiondomain]
> [0.139s][trace][protectiondomain] pd set = #1
> [0.139s][debug][protectiondomain] Checking package access
> [0.139s][debug][protectiondomain]  - class loader:      a 
> 'sun/misc/Launcher$AppClassLoader'
> [0.139s][debug][protectiondomain]  - protection domain: a 
> 'java/security/ProtectionDomain'
> [0.139s][debug][protectiondomain]  - loading: 'java/lang/System'
> [0.139s][debug][protectiondomain]  -> granted
> [0.139s][debug][protectiondomain]
> [0.139s][trace][protectiondomain] pd set = #1
> [0.140s][debug][protectiondomain] Checking package access
> [0.140s][debug][protectiondomain]  - class loader:      a 
> 'sun/misc/Launcher$AppClassLoader'
> [0.140s][debug][protectiondomain]  - protection domain: a 
> 'java/security/ProtectionDomain'
> [0.140s][debug][protectiondomain]  - loading: 'java/io/PrintStream'
> [0.140s][debug][protectiondomain]  -> granted
> [0.140s][debug][protectiondomain]
> [0.140s][trace][protectiondomain] pd set = #1
>
> I am anticipating several comments and suggestions, but I believe 
> there are only minor changes remaining. I would like to remove the 
> empty space, though I believe this was present in the 
> TraceProtectionDomainVerification output to make the output more 
> readable. I also anticipate that you may want me to remove the "-" 
> from in front of some of the lines.  Again, I would like input since 
> output seems like it was designed to look a certain way.
>
> Thanks,
> Max
>