<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Aug 11, 2022, at 5:12 AM, Andrew Haley <<a href="mailto:aph-open@littlepinkcloud.com" class="">aph-open@littlepinkcloud.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">On 8/11/22 05:01, Alvarez, David wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">We have been seeing the same crashes mentioned in a previous email [1]<br class="">to this list. For one of our customers this crash is affecting<br class="">approximately 1% of all java invocations.<br class="">We have been able to confirm that crashes do go away after backing out<br class="">JDK-8279219 [4][5].<br class="">We are advocating for a patch release (11.0.16.1) to address this issue.<br class="">We don't believe it is appropriate to roll back given there was a high<br class="">severity CVE addressed in 11.0.16.<br class=""></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I'd like to voice support for David's position above. We too have had multiple crash</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">reports from the field related to this issue, rising to the point where people are stuck</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">between the demonstrated destabilization resulting from wide 11.0.16 rollout and</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">accepting continued exposure to a high severity CVE. That is not a good place</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">to be. Some are choosing to systemically roll back or otherwise delay the rollout</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">of 11.0.16.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br class=""></div><div><font color="#000000" class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">We believe that this should raise the priority of JDK-8291665 to a P1, that</span></font></div><div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">an 11.0.16.1 is warranted in this case, and the need for a stable 11.0.16(.1)</span></div><div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">is fairly </span><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">urgent.</span></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Regarding 17 and 18, we are working on a reproducer. We believe this<br class="">issue affects them as well.<br class=""></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Agreed. While we have not gotten specific reports of crashes in 17.0.4, we believe</div><div>a 17.0.4.1 may be warranted as well, for the same reasons.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Whether or not to push out an 18.0.2.1 may be a more debate-able thing. 11 and 17</div><div>are positioned and used as LTS releases. 18 is not, and 18.0.2 was meant to be the</div><div>last update for 18. Whether or not that last update is fixed for stability with an</div><div>18.0.2.1 update is much less critical (IMO) than having the LTS updates containing</div><div>the latest security updates be stable.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">But not JDK head, to which the fix was applied?<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>The urgency for fixing this in the JDK head is much lower than in the LTS</div><div>updates IMO. It may be a good idea to revert the fix for JDK-8279219 in</div><div>the head as well, until a reworked fix that does not destabilize in 11 is done.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">This is the error reported initially as JDK-8291665 [2] (and also as<br class="">JDK-8291919 [3] which was closed as duplicate).<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">OK, but (presumably) we'd still have to deal with the bug which was fixed<br class="">by JDK-8279219. In that case we'd need to do another fix, to back-port<br class="">JDK-8279219 properly. Or is it the case that the 8279219 is not important?<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This would be most easily depicted by re-prioritizing JDK-8291665 to a P1…</div></div></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Roland Westrelin will be back in a few days' time, and he will be able<br class="">to analyse the problem.<br class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Given the urgency of getting a stable 11.0.16.1 out, I don't think we should</div><div>wait a few days with analysis.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>------</div><div><pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">[2] <a href="https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8291665" class="">https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8291665</a>
[4] <a href="https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8279219" class="">https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8279219</a></pre><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class=""></body></html>