RFR (S) 8164207: Checking missing load-acquire in relation to _pd_set in dictionary.cpp

[coleen.phillimore at oracle.com]

On 8/24/17 5:00 PM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 2017, at 10:54 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/24/17 4:07 PM, Zhengyu Gu wrote:
>>> Hi Coleen,
>>>
>>> There are two instances probably overlooked?
>>>
>>> dictionary.cpp #103 and #124
>>>
>>>     for (ProtectionDomainEntry* current = _pd_set;
>>> =>
>>>     for (ProtectionDomainEntry* current = pd_set();
>>>
>>>
>> Oh yeah, you're right.  That's embarrasing.   I'll fix and retest.
> Which also shows that there is a potential for future mistakes.  Can we isolate the field better so it’s only accessible via setter and getter?

Yes, great idea.
Coleen

>> Thank you!!
>> Coleen
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -Zhengyu
>>>
>>> On 08/24/2017 02:28 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>>> Summary: Use load_acquire for accessing DictionaryEntry::_pd_set since it's accessed outside the SystemDictionary_lock
>>>>
>>>> Ran parallel class loading tests that we have as well as tier1 tests. See bug for details.
>>>>
>>>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8164207.01/webrev
>>>> bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164207
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Coleen
>>>>