RFR(xxs, jdk10): 8171508: os::jvm_path -XXaltjvm processing error after 8066474

[Thomas Stüfe]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> thanks for reviewing! See comments inline:
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:39 AM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> On 26/04/2017 5:10 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> may I please have a review for this tiny fix. 8066474 removed the <arch>
>>> directory from the images and since then -XXaltjvm was slightly broken.
>>> When handling XXaltjvm, os::jvm_path() examines the path of the libjvm.so
>>> to check if it is part of what it considers a standard JDK by traversing
>>> a
>>> number of slashes up the path and looking for "/jre/lib". That number of
>>> slashes was off since 8066474.
>>>
>>
>> On BSD we never had the <arch> directory so that seems to have always
>> been broken - despite the updated comment!
>
>
> This seems to be not well tested, but then, I also did not find much
> information about how altjvm is supposed to work. Is this even an official
> VM?
>
>

(Sorry, typo, I meant: Is this an official option?)


>
>>
>> webrev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8171508-os_jvm_pa
>>> th_xxaltjvm_processing_error_after_8066474/jdk10-webrev.00/w
>>> ebrev/index.html
>>>
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171508
>>>
>>> Note that this only affects cases where the alternate libjvm.so is part
>>> of
>>> a full jdk, so it does not affect the gtestLauncher.
>>>
>>
>> Changes look good.
>>
>> I wonder whether we can easily write a simple sanity test for this? eg by
>> pointing altjvm to the actual JDK path?
>>
>
> One could test this by starting the VM with -XXaltjvm=<path>
> -XX:ErrorHandlerTest=<xx> and let the VM crash. Then examine the hs_err
> file - the loaded libjvm.so location should be <path>, but libjava.so and
> friends should be loaded either from <path> or from JAVA_HOME, depending on
> whether <path> is a full jdk.
>
> But currently I have not the time to write this test. I am currently
> working on fixing gtests for AIX and this is a side issue I encountered. So
> I'd like to make the test a separate issue.
>
> Could you please sponsor the fix? Bug ID seems to be fine this time :)
>
> Thanks, Thomas
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>> Thanks & Regards, Thomas
>>>
>>>
>