From kbarrett at openjdk.org  Sat Nov  1 00:16:02 2025
From: kbarrett at openjdk.org (Kim Barrett)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2025 00:16:02 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8365940: Misleading macro in jvm_md.h:57
In-Reply-To: <rZYnv8CGw7v1jTBwZG8Us5zNYuvd_30C3GzG4gWait4=.56e36e84-de54-4a5c-9819-8314275a565a@github.com>
References: <rZYnv8CGw7v1jTBwZG8Us5zNYuvd_30C3GzG4gWait4=.56e36e84-de54-4a5c-9819-8314275a565a@github.com>
Message-ID: <Vdvt1HZag3V-4N4Kj9rd3rasxN7BecIFIA4oZSussNQ=.09880864-8fe9-45f8-97d0-04b3db17237c@github.com>

On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 19:27:29 GMT, Matias Saavedra Silva <matsaave at openjdk.org> wrote:

> The macro `JVM_MAXPATHLEN` should expand to the result of `MAXPATHLEN + 1` as the original result may lead to a different value when using the macro as part of an expression. Verified with tier 1-5 tests.

I'm approving this change, since it's clearly correct. Treat my earlier
comment as a suggestion for further work. I've even filed an issue for it:
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8371082

Marked as reviewed by kbarrett (Reviewer).

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28049#pullrequestreview-3406658462
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28049#pullrequestreview-3406658733

From henryjen at openjdk.org  Sat Nov  1 15:49:38 2025
From: henryjen at openjdk.org (Henry Jen)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2025 15:49:38 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8369838: Likely invalid assert or function call in jimage.cpp
Message-ID: <TCSujuQFaf7DJl9sMvuzLkoVB48u83MZGA_oG-nzZf0=.7f825c27-cb3b-4afd-85d0-a129de33f2af@github.com>

JVM should not attempt to load resource without module name. All classes loaded from jimage by the bootclassloader should have mapped into a module.

-------------

Commit messages:
 - 8369838: Likely invalid assert or function call in jimage.cpp

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28098/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=28098&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8369838
  Stats: 23 lines in 2 files changed: 1 ins; 2 del; 20 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28098.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/28098/head:pull/28098

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28098

From alanb at openjdk.org  Sun Nov  2 09:04:00 2025
From: alanb at openjdk.org (Alan Bateman)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2025 09:04:00 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8369838: Likely invalid assert or function call in jimage.cpp
In-Reply-To: <TCSujuQFaf7DJl9sMvuzLkoVB48u83MZGA_oG-nzZf0=.7f825c27-cb3b-4afd-85d0-a129de33f2af@github.com>
References: <TCSujuQFaf7DJl9sMvuzLkoVB48u83MZGA_oG-nzZf0=.7f825c27-cb3b-4afd-85d0-a129de33f2af@github.com>
Message-ID: <XNBbyJfAx2wnQlxLafF0AzMP7qJtJPm09HHHbY7SxWg=.70b7cf87-f156-4056-827e-e7867b5be48c@github.com>

On Sat, 1 Nov 2025 15:42:37 GMT, Henry Jen <henryjen at openjdk.org> wrote:

> JVM should not attempt to load resource without module name. All classes loaded from jimage by the bootclassloader should have mapped into a module.

Would it be possible to update the PR with a brief summary on what testing has been done, or just confirm that at least tier1-5 has been run.  It would indeed be a bug if JImageFindResource were called with a zero-length module name so just want to make sure the assert doesn't trigger in some unusual configuration.

As regards asserts vs. JIMAGE_* functions returning errors then I assume errors would be preferable. The classes in classLoader.cpp is the only user so it wouldn't be hard to audit the usage to make sure that they check for errors.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28098#issuecomment-3477557140