From ramanand.patil at oracle.com Fri Feb 2 00:00:16 2018 From: ramanand.patil at oracle.com (Ramanand Patil) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:00:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: Backport of 8195837: (tz) Upgrade time-zone data to tzdata2018c Message-ID: Hi, Please approve the backport of 8195837 to 8u-dev. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8195837 JDK10 Changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk10/rev/55272cc70514 JDK10 Review Thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/i18n-dev/2018-January/002451.html Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling(done manually). All the TZ related testing is done and results are passed. Regards, Ramanand. From david.buck at oracle.com Fri Feb 2 01:23:08 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 10:23:08 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: Backport of 8195837: (tz) Upgrade time-zone data to tzdata2018c In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7024cf6d-3eb9-a95e-37c9-694c8f0635bb@oracle.com> approved for backport to 8u-dev Cheers, -Buck On 2018/02/02 9:00, Ramanand Patil wrote: > Hi, > Please approve the backport of 8195837 to 8u-dev. > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8195837 > JDK10 Changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk10/rev/55272cc70514 > JDK10 Review Thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/i18n-dev/2018-January/002451.html > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling(done manually). > All the TZ related testing is done and results are passed. > > Regards, > Ramanand. > From ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com Fri Feb 2 18:55:04 2018 From: ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com (Ivan Gerasimov) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 10:55:04 -0800 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 8194412: Adding 256 units of IsoFields.QUARTER_YEARS broken Message-ID: <0223a9c8-1b7b-9576-8b94-3a411305773b@oracle.com> Hello! I'd like to backport the fix to jdk8u-dev. The unshuffled fix applies cleanly, the test passes after the fix. BUG: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8194412 JDK 11 change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/4cf06ada7fa2 JDK 11 review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-January/051146.html Thanks in advance! -- With kind regards, Ivan Gerasimov From sean.coffey at oracle.com Fri Feb 2 20:38:49 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 20:38:49 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 8194412: Adding 256 units of IsoFields.QUARTER_YEARS broken In-Reply-To: <0223a9c8-1b7b-9576-8b94-3a411305773b@oracle.com> References: <0223a9c8-1b7b-9576-8b94-3a411305773b@oracle.com> Message-ID: Approved. regards, Sean. On 02/02/2018 18:55, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Hello! > > I'd like to backport the fix to jdk8u-dev. > > The unshuffled fix applies cleanly, the test passes after the fix. > > > BUG: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8194412 > > JDK 11 change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/4cf06ada7fa2 > > JDK 11 review: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-January/051146.html > > > Thanks in advance! > From muthusamy.chinnathambi at oracle.com Mon Feb 5 04:49:58 2018 From: muthusamy.chinnathambi at oracle.com (Muthusamy Chinnathambi) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:49:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [8u] RFA for JDK-8148175: C1: G1 barriers don't preserve FP registers Message-ID: Hi, May I get the approval of backport of JDK-8148175: C1: G1 barriers don't preserve FP registers to jdk8u. Jdk9 bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8148175 Jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2016-March/022086.html Jdk8 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2017-October/027221.html Webrev link: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchinnathamb/8148175/webrev.00/ Regards, Muthusamy C From david.buck at oracle.com Mon Feb 5 06:10:30 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 15:10:30 +0900 Subject: [8u] RFA for JDK-8148175: C1: G1 barriers don't preserve FP registers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <131871d7-89d5-11ad-4ac3-2f4f8199c3f4@oracle.com> Hi! We have identified a small issue with the testcase (G1 not enabled by default in JDK 8). I have asked Mutu, offline, to fix the testcase and do one last round of code review. I am approving this backport on the condition that the testcase is fixed and one more round of code review is successfully completed. Cheers, -Buck On 2018/02/05 13:49, Muthusamy Chinnathambi wrote: > Hi, > > May I get the approval of backport of JDK-8148175: C1: G1 barriers don't preserve FP registers to jdk8u. > > Jdk9 bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8148175 > Jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2016-March/022086.html > Jdk8 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2017-October/027221.html > Webrev link: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchinnathamb/8148175/webrev.00/ > > Regards, > Muthusamy C > From david.buck at oracle.com Tue Feb 6 00:40:33 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:40:33 +0900 Subject: [8u] RFA: 8168628/8171452: (fc) SIGBUS when extending file size to map it Message-ID: <5dd8e142-67af-e174-87f4-135d7c038fe2@oracle.com> Hi! Please approve this backport of jdk8168628 to JDK 8. As jdk8168628 introduced a regression (jdk8171452), I have also included the small fix for that in my backport as it makes sense to push them both at the same time. bug report (original bug): [ (fc) SIGBUS when extending file size to map it ] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168628 bug report (minor regression fix added to above fix): [ (ch) linux io_util_md: Operation not supported exception after 8168628 ] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171452 code review of backport: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nio-dev/2018-February/004673.html I have tested the backport extensively, including building all platforms supported by JPRT for JDK 8, several runs of the "core" jprt testset, and manually confirming the fix with the test case included in the changeset itself (both with and without RAF). Cheers, -Buck From sean.coffey at oracle.com Tue Feb 6 08:19:16 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 08:19:16 +0000 Subject: [8u] RFA: 8168628/8171452: (fc) SIGBUS when extending file size to map it In-Reply-To: <5dd8e142-67af-e174-87f4-135d7c038fe2@oracle.com> References: <5dd8e142-67af-e174-87f4-135d7c038fe2@oracle.com> Message-ID: Approved. regards, Sean. On 06/02/2018 00:40, David Buck wrote: > Hi! > > Please approve this backport of jdk8168628 to JDK 8. As jdk8168628 > introduced a regression (jdk8171452), I have also included the small > fix for that in my backport as it makes sense to push them both at the > same time. > > bug report (original bug): > [ (fc) SIGBUS when extending file size to map it ] > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168628 > > bug report (minor regression fix added to above fix): > [ (ch) linux io_util_md: Operation not supported exception after > 8168628 ] > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171452 > > code review of backport: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nio-dev/2018-February/004673.html > > I have tested the backport extensively, including building all platforms > supported by JPRT for JDK 8, several runs of the "core" jprt testset, > and manually confirming the fix with the test case included in the > changeset itself (both with and without RAF). > > Cheers, > -Buck From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Tue Feb 6 15:39:51 2018 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 15:39:51 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8156824: com.sun.jndi.ldap.pool.PoolCleaner should clear its context class loader Message-ID: <20180206153951.GB3909@vimes> Hi folks, Looking to backport the following change: bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8156824 codereview: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-January/051121.html webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8156824/webrev.01/ 9u changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/22e704dfa05c -Rob From sean.coffey at oracle.com Tue Feb 6 15:48:22 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 15:48:22 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8156824: com.sun.jndi.ldap.pool.PoolCleaner should clear its context class loader In-Reply-To: <20180206153951.GB3909@vimes> References: <20180206153951.GB3909@vimes> Message-ID: <56c3733b-bed0-6fb9-1aaf-f02797518df1@oracle.com> Approved. regards, Sean. On 06/02/2018 15:39, Rob McKenna wrote: > Hi folks, > > Looking to backport the following change: > > bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8156824 > codereview: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-January/051121.html > webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8156824/webrev.01/ > 9u changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/22e704dfa05c > > -Rob > From poonam.bajaj at oracle.com Wed Feb 7 22:09:15 2018 From: poonam.bajaj at oracle.com (Poonam Parhar) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 14:09:15 -0800 Subject: [8u-dev] RFA: JDK-8187577: JVM crash during gc doing concurrent marking Message-ID: Requesting approval of backport of the following fix to 8u-dev: Bug: JDK-8187577: JVM crash during gc doing concurrent marking Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~poonam/8187577/webrev.01/ Codereview: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/2018-February/021131.html Changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/hs/rev/6b510cb0f14f The change applies cleanly to 8u. Thanks, Poonam From ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com Wed Feb 7 22:14:36 2018 From: ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com (Ivan Gerasimov) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 14:14:36 -0800 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport : 8051972: sun/security/pkcs11/ec/ReadCertificates.java fails intermittentl Message-ID: <2525a2a2-ecc3-ea57-3aa5-39a91fe9e82a@oracle.com> Hello! The mentioned in the subject regression test fails intermittently, so I'd like to backport this fix. The fix from JDK 9 applies cleanly. BUG: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8051972 JDK9 Change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/590fda9d9571 JDK9 Review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2014-August/010922.html Thanks in advance! -- With kind regards, Ivan Gerasimov From david.buck at oracle.com Wed Feb 7 22:27:52 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 07:27:52 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport : 8051972: sun/security/pkcs11/ec/ReadCertificates.java fails intermittentl In-Reply-To: <2525a2a2-ecc3-ea57-3aa5-39a91fe9e82a@oracle.com> References: <2525a2a2-ecc3-ea57-3aa5-39a91fe9e82a@oracle.com> Message-ID: approved Cheers, -Buck On 2018/02/08 7:14, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Hello! > > The mentioned in the subject regression test fails intermittently, so > I'd like to backport this fix. > > The fix from JDK 9 applies cleanly. > > BUG: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8051972 > > JDK9 Change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/590fda9d9571 > > JDK9 Review: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2014-August/010922.html > > Thanks in advance! > From david.buck at oracle.com Wed Feb 7 22:33:23 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 07:33:23 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] RFA: JDK-8187577: JVM crash during gc doing concurrent marking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d1aff4d-9023-cb84-e472-f8fc102796b7@oracle.com> approved Cheers, -Buck On 2018/02/08 7:09, Poonam Parhar wrote: > Requesting approval of backport of the following fix to 8u-dev: > > Bug: JDK-8187577: JVM > crash during gc doing concurrent marking > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~poonam/8187577/webrev.01/ > Codereview: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/2018-February/021131.html > > Changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/hs/rev/6b510cb0f14f > > The change applies cleanly to 8u. > > Thanks, > Poonam > From prasadarao.koppula at oracle.com Thu Feb 8 09:13:39 2018 From: prasadarao.koppula at oracle.com (Prasadrao Koppula) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 01:13:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8081792: buffer size calculation issue in NativeGCMCipher Message-ID: <5f9217b9-12a5-454e-b298-dbb65097c274@default> Hi, I'd like to backport the fix to jdk8u-dev. After path reshuffling, fix applies cleanly (except copyright). BUG: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8081792 JDK 9 change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/9443aa6747d6 JDK 9 review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-June/012289.html Thanks, Prasad.K From david.buck at oracle.com Thu Feb 8 09:16:37 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 18:16:37 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8081792: buffer size calculation issue in NativeGCMCipher In-Reply-To: <5f9217b9-12a5-454e-b298-dbb65097c274@default> References: <5f9217b9-12a5-454e-b298-dbb65097c274@default> Message-ID: approved for backport to 8u-dev Cheers, -Buck On 2018/02/08 18:13, Prasadrao Koppula wrote: > Hi, > > > > I'd like to backport the fix to jdk8u-dev. > > > > After path reshuffling, fix applies cleanly (except copyright). > > > > BUG: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8081792 > > JDK 9 change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/9443aa6747d6 > > JDK 9 review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-June/012289.html > > > > Thanks, > > Prasad.K > From sean.coffey at oracle.com Thu Feb 8 15:52:01 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:52:01 +0000 Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Request for approval : 8196854: TestFlushableGZIPOutputStream failing with IndexOutOfBoundsException Message-ID: <8c420d59-a72b-d3c8-a640-119a67457afb@oracle.com> Seeking to push this testcase correction to jdk8u-dev. It's not applicable to later releases. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8196854 review thread : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-February/051319.html webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8196854/webrev/ regards, Sean. From ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com Thu Feb 8 22:27:47 2018 From: ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com (Ivan Gerasimov) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 14:27:47 -0800 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 8157898: SupportedDSAParamGen.java failed with timeout Message-ID: Hello! The mentioned test sometimes fails with time out. Let's increase the timeout as it was done in JDK 9! BUG: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8157898 JDK 9 Change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/4f8e07921d19 JDK 9 Review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2016-June/014060.html Thanks in advance! -- With kind regards, Ivan Gerasimov From david.buck at oracle.com Thu Feb 8 23:25:11 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 08:25:11 +0900 Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Request for approval : 8196854: TestFlushableGZIPOutputStream failing with IndexOutOfBoundsException In-Reply-To: <8c420d59-a72b-d3c8-a640-119a67457afb@oracle.com> References: <8c420d59-a72b-d3c8-a640-119a67457afb@oracle.com> Message-ID: approved Cheers, -Buck On 2018/02/09 0:52, Se?n Coffey wrote: > Seeking to push this testcase correction to jdk8u-dev. It's not > applicable to later releases. > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8196854 > review thread : > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-February/051319.html > > webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8196854/webrev/ > > regards, > Sean. > From ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com Thu Feb 8 23:29:38 2018 From: ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com (Ivan Gerasimov) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:29:38 -0800 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 8157898: SupportedDSAParamGen.java failed with timeout In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44afa1af-208a-d3e6-766f-ac9af35d4d96@oracle.com> Forgot to mention that the fix applies cleanly. On 2/8/18 2:27 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Hello! > > The mentioned test sometimes fails with time out. Let's increase the > timeout as it was done in JDK 9! > > BUG: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8157898 > > JDK 9 Change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/4f8e07921d19 > > JDK 9 Review: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2016-June/014060.html > > Thanks in advance! > -- With kind regards, Ivan Gerasimov From david.buck at oracle.com Thu Feb 8 23:45:03 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 08:45:03 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 8157898: SupportedDSAParamGen.java failed with timeout In-Reply-To: <44afa1af-208a-d3e6-766f-ac9af35d4d96@oracle.com> References: <44afa1af-208a-d3e6-766f-ac9af35d4d96@oracle.com> Message-ID: <2e54b5fd-6001-f7e2-2afd-d62e54aa0bf9@oracle.com> Spoke with Ivan offline. jdk8157898 was originally pushed into 9 with jdk8157896 as part of the same changeset. jdk8157896, which also appears to have applied trivially, was backported to JDK 8 last year. So this request is to simply bring back the rest of the original JDK 9 changeset. approved for backport Cheers, -Buck On 2018/02/09 8:29, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Forgot to mention that the fix applies cleanly. > > > On 2/8/18 2:27 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: >> Hello! >> >> The mentioned test sometimes fails with time out.? Let's increase the >> timeout as it was done in JDK 9! >> >> BUG: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8157898 >> >> JDK 9 Change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/4f8e07921d19 >> >> JDK 9 Review: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2016-June/014060.html >> >> Thanks in advance! >> > From ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com Thu Feb 8 23:56:25 2018 From: ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com (Ivan Gerasimov) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:56:25 -0800 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 8157898: SupportedDSAParamGen.java failed with timeout In-Reply-To: <2e54b5fd-6001-f7e2-2afd-d62e54aa0bf9@oracle.com> References: <44afa1af-208a-d3e6-766f-ac9af35d4d96@oracle.com> <2e54b5fd-6001-f7e2-2afd-d62e54aa0bf9@oracle.com> Message-ID: <45df3e8f-5665-fa9c-716f-41f6c8858e6f@oracle.com> Thanks David! On 2/8/18 3:45 PM, David Buck wrote: > Spoke with Ivan offline. jdk8157898 was originally pushed into 9 with > jdk8157896 as part of the same changeset. jdk8157896, which also > appears to have applied trivially, was backported to JDK 8 last year. > So this request is to simply bring back the rest of the original JDK 9 > changeset. > > approved for backport > > Cheers, > -Buck > > On 2018/02/09 8:29, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: >> Forgot to mention that the fix applies cleanly. >> >> >> On 2/8/18 2:27 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: >>> Hello! >>> >>> The mentioned test sometimes fails with time out. Let's increase >>> the timeout as it was done in JDK 9! >>> >>> BUG: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8157898 >>> >>> JDK 9 Change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/4f8e07921d19 >>> >>> JDK 9 Review: >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2016-June/014060.html >>> >>> Thanks in advance! >>> >> > -- With kind regards, Ivan Gerasimov From jheffron at forcepoint.com Sat Feb 10 07:31:00 2018 From: jheffron at forcepoint.com (Heffron, Jim) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:31:00 +0000 Subject: critical patch 8u172 Message-ID: Is it correct to understand that the 8u172 will include the fixes which go into the Oracle Critical patch targeted for 17th of April? Also are there plans to have additional 8u releases beyond u172 or will 8u be retired? Thanks, JIM HEFFRON Manager- Software Development FORCEPOINT From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Mon Feb 12 13:04:53 2018 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:04:53 +0100 Subject: critical patch 8u172 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10.02.2018 08:31, Heffron, Jim wrote: > Is it correct to understand that the 8u172 will include the fixes which go into the Oracle Critical patch targeted for 17th of April? Yes, that's how the current PSU releases work. > Also are there plans to have additional 8u releases beyond u172 or will 8u be retired? As was done for JDK 6 and JDK 7 Updates, at some point, the current set of maintainers (employed by Oracle) will notify the list of their intention to retire from leading and maintaining the JDK 8 Updates Project in OpenJDK. If someone else suitable steps up to continue to lead and maintain this Project in OpenJDK from that point on, then we'll discuss the modalities of the transition on this list. On a side note, the specific plans for further Oracle JDK 8 Update releases can be found at https://blogs.oracle.com/java-platform-group/extension-of-oracle-java-se-8-public-updates-and-java-web-start-support . They are best discussed on community.oracle.com/java rather than on this list, though. cheers, dalibor topic -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From jheffron at forcepoint.com Mon Feb 12 16:42:32 2018 From: jheffron at forcepoint.com (Heffron, Jim) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:42:32 +0000 Subject: critical patch 8u172 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: jdk8u-dev [mailto:jdk8u-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of dalibor topic Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 5:05 AM To: jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: critical patch 8u172 On 10.02.2018 08:31, Heffron, Jim wrote: > Is it correct to understand that the 8u172 will include the fixes which go into the Oracle Critical patch targeted for 17th of April? Yes, that's how the current PSU releases work. > Also are there plans to have additional 8u releases beyond u172 or will 8u be retired? As was done for JDK 6 and JDK 7 Updates, at some point, the current set of maintainers (employed by Oracle) will notify the list of their intention to retire from leading and maintaining the JDK 8 Updates Project in OpenJDK. If someone else suitable steps up to continue to lead and maintain this Project in OpenJDK from that point on, then we'll discuss the modalities of the transition on this list. On a side note, the specific plans for further Oracle JDK 8 Update releases can be found at https://blogs.oracle.com/java-platform-group/extension-of-oracle-java-se-8-public-updates-and-java-web-start-support . They are best discussed on community.oracle.com/java rather than on this list, though. cheers, dalibor topic -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From egor.ushakov at jetbrains.com Tue Feb 13 09:14:14 2018 From: egor.ushakov at jetbrains.com (Egor Ushakov) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:14:14 +0300 Subject: Issues debugging java 9 from jdk 8 In-Reply-To: References: <69179b71-90c0-d921-dd8c-3b5800ce8f6d@jetbrains.com> Message-ID: <77f0c027-4df2-baba-8d90-0755df27aec0@jetbrains.com> Thanks Chris! Unfortunately, I'm unable to join the list, also I do not see this forwarded email in the jdk8u-dev archives: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-February/thread.html Probably we're not on the list or something. Can someone on the jdk8u-dev mailing list forward it there? Thanks, Egor On 08-Feb-18 01:44, Chris Plummer wrote: > Hi Egor, > > [adding jdk8u-dev, which is where 8u backports are discussed] > > I think major.minor changed from 1.8 to 9.0, although I haven't found > the code to confirm that yet. I'm assuming this because of the > following code: > > ??? public boolean canGetModuleInfo() { > ??????? validateVM(); > ??????? return versionInfo().jdwpMajor >= 9; > ??? } > > Given that, your changes look correct. I'm not an 8u reviewer. You'll > need to get the official ok from someone on the 8u list. > > thanks, > > Chris > > On 2/5/18 7:44 AM, Egor Ushakov wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> in IDEA we faced an issue that when debugging java 9 process memory >> view does not work: >> https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/JRE-641 >> >> It seems that there's a bug in how >> VirtualMachineImpl.canGetInstanceInfo checks vm version (it does not >> pass jdk 9 where minor is 0): >> if(versionInfo().jdwpMajor <1|| >> versionInfo().jdwpMinor <6){ >> returnfalse; >> } >> I've found this fixed in jdk 9 inside the fix: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs/rev/f900d5afd9c8 >> 8142968: Module System implementation Summary: Initial integration of >> JEP 200, JEP 260, JEP 261, and JEP 282 alanb 17-Mar-16 22:04 >> >> We've applied the part of the fix into our jdk 8 fork: >> https://github.com/JetBrains/jdk8u_jdk/commit/6424e2786e8adc4e012e0b7bd0cfc78ba1ab34dd >> >> It seems reasonable to backport at least this part into openjdk 8? >> What do you think? >> Maybe some other parts deserve backporting as well. >> I've attached the patch just in case. >> -- >> Egor Ushakov >> Software Developer >> JetBrains >> http://www.jetbrains.com >> The Drive to Develop > > -- Egor Ushakov Software Developer JetBrains http://www.jetbrains.com The Drive to Develop From ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com Wed Feb 14 03:37:13 2018 From: ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com (Ivan Gerasimov) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:37:13 -0800 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 8176183: sun/security/mscapi/SignedObjectChain.java fails on Windows Message-ID: Hello! I'd like to backport this test fix, as the test was seen to fail in JDK 8u-dev with the same symptoms. The patch applies cleanly (minus the PromlemList portion, which is not relevant). BUG: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176183 JDK 9 Change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/a3276d8711b7 JDK 9 Review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2017-March/015674.html Thanks in advance! -- With kind regards, Ivan Gerasimov From sean.coffey at oracle.com Wed Feb 14 09:36:03 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:36:03 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 8176183: sun/security/mscapi/SignedObjectChain.java fails on Windows In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74c2ca33-3373-94a4-d7aa-7dddb87ccc56@oracle.com> Approved. regards, Sean. On 14/02/2018 03:37, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Hello! > > I'd like to backport this test fix, as the test was seen to fail in > JDK 8u-dev with the same symptoms. > The patch applies cleanly (minus the PromlemList portion, which is not > relevant). > > BUG: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176183 > > JDK 9 Change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/a3276d8711b7 > > JDK 9 Review: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2017-March/015674.html > > Thanks in advance! > From egor.ushakov at jetbrains.com Wed Feb 14 11:35:15 2018 From: egor.ushakov at jetbrains.com (Egor Ushakov) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:35:15 +0300 Subject: Issues debugging java 9 from jdk 8 In-Reply-To: References: <69179b71-90c0-d921-dd8c-3b5800ce8f6d@jetbrains.com> Message-ID: <4f25d1ec-5be4-8ef6-3503-86706009d84d@jetbrains.com> Hi all, re-sending this here again, sorry for repeating. Can anyone in jdk8u-dev help with this? Thanks, Egor On 08-Feb-18 01:44, Chris Plummer wrote: > Hi Egor, > > [adding jdk8u-dev, which is where 8u backports are discussed] > > I think major.minor changed from 1.8 to 9.0, although I haven't found > the code to confirm that yet. I'm assuming this because of the > following code: > > ??? public boolean canGetModuleInfo() { > ??????? validateVM(); > ??????? return versionInfo().jdwpMajor >= 9; > ??? } > > Given that, your changes look correct. I'm not an 8u reviewer. You'll > need to get the official ok from someone on the 8u list. > > thanks, > > Chris > > On 2/5/18 7:44 AM, Egor Ushakov wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> in IDEA we faced an issue that when debugging java 9 process memory >> view does not work: >> https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/JRE-641 >> >> It seems that there's a bug in how >> VirtualMachineImpl.canGetInstanceInfo checks vm version (it does not >> pass jdk 9 where minor is 0): >> if(versionInfo().jdwpMajor <1|| >> versionInfo().jdwpMinor <6){ >> returnfalse; >> } >> I've found this fixed in jdk 9 inside the fix: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs/rev/f900d5afd9c8 >> 8142968: Module System implementation Summary: Initial integration of >> JEP 200, JEP 260, JEP 261, and JEP 282 alanb 17-Mar-16 22:04 >> >> We've applied the part of the fix into our jdk 8 fork: >> https://github.com/JetBrains/jdk8u_jdk/commit/6424e2786e8adc4e012e0b7bd0cfc78ba1ab34dd >> >> It seems reasonable to backport at least this part into openjdk 8? >> What do you think? >> Maybe some other parts deserve backporting as well. >> I've attached the patch just in case. >> -- >> Egor Ushakov >> Software Developer >> JetBrains >> http://www.jetbrains.com >> The Drive to Develop > > -- Egor Ushakov Software Developer JetBrains http://www.jetbrains.com The Drive to Develop From sean.coffey at oracle.com Wed Feb 14 12:35:36 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:35:36 +0000 Subject: Issues debugging java 9 from jdk 8 In-Reply-To: <4f25d1ec-5be4-8ef6-3503-86706009d84d@jetbrains.com> References: <69179b71-90c0-d921-dd8c-3b5800ce8f6d@jetbrains.com> <4f25d1ec-5be4-8ef6-3503-86706009d84d@jetbrains.com> Message-ID: <50d3dda3-fd51-d50a-9d38-2907b0eaafed@oracle.com> Hi Egor, thanks for raising this issue. Code reviews for any new change should be carried out on the relevant development mailing list. In your case, you need to start a mail thread with serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net Once a patch is agreed, please request integration on the jdk8u-dev mailing list via the standard process : http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/approval-template.html Feel free to ping me if you have any more questions on this approach. Regards, Sean. On 14/02/18 11:35, Egor Ushakov wrote: > Hi all, re-sending this here again, sorry for repeating. > Can anyone in jdk8u-dev help with this? > > Thanks, > Egor > > On 08-Feb-18 01:44, Chris Plummer wrote: >> Hi Egor, >> >> [adding jdk8u-dev, which is where 8u backports are discussed] >> >> I think major.minor changed from 1.8 to 9.0, although I haven't found >> the code to confirm that yet. I'm assuming this because of the >> following code: >> >> public boolean canGetModuleInfo() { >> validateVM(); >> return versionInfo().jdwpMajor >= 9; >> } >> >> Given that, your changes look correct. I'm not an 8u reviewer. You'll >> need to get the official ok from someone on the 8u list. >> >> thanks, >> >> Chris >> >> On 2/5/18 7:44 AM, Egor Ushakov wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> in IDEA we faced an issue that when debugging java 9 process memory >>> view does not work: >>> https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/JRE-641 >>> >>> It seems that there's a bug in how >>> VirtualMachineImpl.canGetInstanceInfo checks vm version (it does not >>> pass jdk 9 where minor is 0): >>> if(versionInfo().jdwpMajor <1|| >>> versionInfo().jdwpMinor <6){ >>> returnfalse; >>> } >>> I've found this fixed in jdk 9 inside the fix: >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs/rev/f900d5afd9c8 >>> 8142968: Module System implementation Summary: Initial integration >>> of JEP 200, JEP 260, JEP 261, and JEP 282 alanb 17-Mar-16 22:04 >>> >>> We've applied the part of the fix into our jdk 8 fork: >>> https://github.com/JetBrains/jdk8u_jdk/commit/6424e2786e8adc4e012e0b7bd0cfc78ba1ab34dd >>> >>> >>> It seems reasonable to backport at least this part into openjdk 8? >>> What do you think? >>> Maybe some other parts deserve backporting as well. >>> I've attached the patch just in case. >>> -- >>> Egor Ushakov >>> Software Developer >>> JetBrains >>> http://www.jetbrains.com >>> The Drive to Develop >> >> > From egor.ushakov at jetbrains.com Wed Feb 14 14:44:50 2018 From: egor.ushakov at jetbrains.com (Egor Ushakov) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:44:50 +0300 Subject: Issues debugging java 9 from jdk 8 In-Reply-To: <50d3dda3-fd51-d50a-9d38-2907b0eaafed@oracle.com> References: <69179b71-90c0-d921-dd8c-3b5800ce8f6d@jetbrains.com> <4f25d1ec-5be4-8ef6-3503-86706009d84d@jetbrains.com> <50d3dda3-fd51-d50a-9d38-2907b0eaafed@oracle.com> Message-ID: <08bad063-8363-95f3-8846-dce4d5b19331@jetbrains.com> Thanks Se?n! This was discussed and accepted on serviceability-dev, you can see the comment by Chris Plummer below. Reattaching the patch that was lost in forwardings. Egor On 14-Feb-18 15:35, Se?n Coffey wrote: > Hi Egor, > > thanks for raising this issue. Code reviews for any new change should > be carried out on the relevant development mailing list. In your case, > you need to start a mail thread with serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net > > Once a patch is agreed, please request integration on the jdk8u-dev > mailing list via the standard process : > > http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/approval-template.html > > Feel free to ping me if you have any more questions on this approach. > > Regards, > Sean. > > On 14/02/18 11:35, Egor Ushakov wrote: >> Hi all, re-sending this here again, sorry for repeating. >> Can anyone in jdk8u-dev help with this? >> >> Thanks, >> Egor >> >> On 08-Feb-18 01:44, Chris Plummer wrote: >>> Hi Egor, >>> >>> [adding jdk8u-dev, which is where 8u backports are discussed] >>> >>> I think major.minor changed from 1.8 to 9.0, although I haven't >>> found the code to confirm that yet. I'm assuming this because of the >>> following code: >>> >>> ??? public boolean canGetModuleInfo() { >>> ??????? validateVM(); >>> ??????? return versionInfo().jdwpMajor >= 9; >>> ??? } >>> >>> Given that, your changes look correct. I'm not an 8u reviewer. >>> You'll need to get the official ok from someone on the 8u list. >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> On 2/5/18 7:44 AM, Egor Ushakov wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> in IDEA we faced an issue that when debugging java 9 process memory >>>> view does not work: >>>> https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/JRE-641 >>>> >>>> It seems that there's a bug in how >>>> VirtualMachineImpl.canGetInstanceInfo checks vm version (it does >>>> not pass jdk 9 where minor is 0): >>>> if(versionInfo().jdwpMajor <1|| >>>> versionInfo().jdwpMinor <6){ >>>> returnfalse; >>>> } >>>> I've found this fixed in jdk 9 inside the fix: >>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs/rev/f900d5afd9c8 >>>> 8142968: Module System implementation Summary: Initial integration >>>> of JEP 200, JEP 260, JEP 261, and JEP 282 alanb 17-Mar-16 22:04 >>>> >>>> We've applied the part of the fix into our jdk 8 fork: >>>> https://github.com/JetBrains/jdk8u_jdk/commit/6424e2786e8adc4e012e0b7bd0cfc78ba1ab34dd >>>> >>>> >>>> It seems reasonable to backport at least this part into openjdk 8? >>>> What do you think? >>>> Maybe some other parts deserve backporting as well. >>>> I've attached the patch just in case. >>>> -- >>>> Egor Ushakov >>>> Software Developer >>>> JetBrains >>>> http://www.jetbrains.com >>>> The Drive to Develop >>> >>> >> > -- Egor Ushakov Software Developer JetBrains http://www.jetbrains.com The Drive to Develop -------------- next part -------------- Index: src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/jdi/VirtualMachineImpl.java IDEA additional info: Subsystem: com.intellij.openapi.diff.impl.patch.CharsetEP <+>UTF-8 =================================================================== --- src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/jdi/VirtualMachineImpl.java (revision d93beeae90a6c98a14982dffa4652235c3321307) +++ src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/jdi/VirtualMachineImpl.java (revision 6424e2786e8adc4e012e0b7bd0cfc78ba1ab34dd) @@ -674,20 +674,18 @@ versionInfo().jdwpMinor >= 6; } public boolean canGetInstanceInfo() { - if (versionInfo().jdwpMajor < 1 || - versionInfo().jdwpMinor < 6) { - return false; - } - validateVM(); - return hasNewCapabilities() && - capabilitiesNew().canGetInstanceInfo; - } - public boolean canUseSourceNameFilters() { - if (versionInfo().jdwpMajor < 1 || - versionInfo().jdwpMinor < 6) { + if (versionInfo().jdwpMajor > 1 || + versionInfo().jdwpMinor >= 6) { + validateVM(); + return hasNewCapabilities() && + capabilitiesNew().canGetInstanceInfo; + } else { return false; } - return true; + } + public boolean canUseSourceNameFilters() { + return versionInfo().jdwpMajor > 1 || + versionInfo().jdwpMinor >= 6; } public boolean canForceEarlyReturn() { validateVM(); @@ -703,12 +701,8 @@ capabilitiesNew().canGetSourceDebugExtension; } public boolean canGetClassFileVersion() { - if ( versionInfo().jdwpMajor < 1 && - versionInfo().jdwpMinor < 6) { - return false; - } else { - return true; - } + return versionInfo().jdwpMajor > 1 || + versionInfo().jdwpMinor >= 6; } public boolean canGetConstantPool() { validateVM(); From sean.coffey at oracle.com Wed Feb 14 14:58:37 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:58:37 +0000 Subject: Issues debugging java 9 from jdk 8 (JDK-8197943) In-Reply-To: <08bad063-8363-95f3-8846-dce4d5b19331@jetbrains.com> References: <69179b71-90c0-d921-dd8c-3b5800ce8f6d@jetbrains.com> <4f25d1ec-5be4-8ef6-3503-86706009d84d@jetbrains.com> <50d3dda3-fd51-d50a-9d38-2907b0eaafed@oracle.com> <08bad063-8363-95f3-8846-dce4d5b19331@jetbrains.com> Message-ID: <3c164e07-7e04-b56a-4a47-ae65ed49cb35@oracle.com> The patch has not been officially Reviewed. Chris already pointed that out. As per standard process, please chase up the issue on the serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net mailing list and seek an official review from someone with Reviewer role [1]. Once complete, please seek jdk8u push approval [2] I've logged https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8197943 to track this. [1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#jdk8u [2] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/approval-template.html Regards, Sean. On 14/02/18 14:44, Egor Ushakov wrote: > Thanks Se?n! > > This was discussed and accepted on serviceability-dev, you can see the > comment by Chris Plummer below. > Reattaching the patch that was lost in forwardings. > > Egor > > On 14-Feb-18 15:35, Se?n Coffey wrote: >> Hi Egor, >> >> thanks for raising this issue. Code reviews for any new change should >> be carried out on the relevant development mailing list. In your >> case, you need to start a mail thread with >> serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net >> >> Once a patch is agreed, please request integration on the jdk8u-dev >> mailing list via the standard process : >> >> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/approval-template.html >> >> Feel free to ping me if you have any more questions on this approach. >> >> Regards, >> Sean. >> >> On 14/02/18 11:35, Egor Ushakov wrote: >>> Hi all, re-sending this here again, sorry for repeating. >>> Can anyone in jdk8u-dev help with this? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Egor >>> >>> On 08-Feb-18 01:44, Chris Plummer wrote: >>>> Hi Egor, >>>> >>>> [adding jdk8u-dev, which is where 8u backports are discussed] >>>> >>>> I think major.minor changed from 1.8 to 9.0, although I haven't >>>> found the code to confirm that yet. I'm assuming this because of >>>> the following code: >>>> >>>> public boolean canGetModuleInfo() { >>>> validateVM(); >>>> return versionInfo().jdwpMajor >= 9; >>>> } >>>> >>>> Given that, your changes look correct. I'm not an 8u reviewer. >>>> You'll need to get the official ok from someone on the 8u list. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> On 2/5/18 7:44 AM, Egor Ushakov wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> in IDEA we faced an issue that when debugging java 9 process >>>>> memory view does not work: >>>>> https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/JRE-641 >>>>> >>>>> It seems that there's a bug in how >>>>> VirtualMachineImpl.canGetInstanceInfo checks vm version (it does >>>>> not pass jdk 9 where minor is 0): >>>>> if(versionInfo().jdwpMajor <1|| >>>>> versionInfo().jdwpMinor <6){ >>>>> returnfalse; >>>>> } >>>>> I've found this fixed in jdk 9 inside the fix: >>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs/rev/f900d5afd9c8 >>>>> 8142968: Module System implementation Summary: Initial integration >>>>> of JEP 200, JEP 260, JEP 261, and JEP 282 alanb 17-Mar-16 22:04 >>>>> >>>>> We've applied the part of the fix into our jdk 8 fork: >>>>> https://github.com/JetBrains/jdk8u_jdk/commit/6424e2786e8adc4e012e0b7bd0cfc78ba1ab34dd >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It seems reasonable to backport at least this part into openjdk 8? >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> Maybe some other parts deserve backporting as well. >>>>> I've attached the patch just in case. >>>>> -- >>>>> Egor Ushakov >>>>> Software Developer >>>>> JetBrains >>>>> http://www.jetbrains.com >>>>> The Drive to Develop >>>> >>>> >>> >> > From egor.ushakov at jetbrains.com Wed Feb 14 17:15:50 2018 From: egor.ushakov at jetbrains.com (Egor Ushakov) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:15:50 +0300 Subject: Issues debugging java 9 from jdk 8 (JDK-8197943) In-Reply-To: <3c164e07-7e04-b56a-4a47-ae65ed49cb35@oracle.com> References: <69179b71-90c0-d921-dd8c-3b5800ce8f6d@jetbrains.com> <4f25d1ec-5be4-8ef6-3503-86706009d84d@jetbrains.com> <50d3dda3-fd51-d50a-9d38-2907b0eaafed@oracle.com> <08bad063-8363-95f3-8846-dce4d5b19331@jetbrains.com> <3c164e07-7e04-b56a-4a47-ae65ed49cb35@oracle.com> Message-ID: <4054e828-9e0f-8eab-4ecb-92ee277e3436@jetbrains.com> Sean, thanks for the bug! We have the fix in our jdk 8 fork, there's no real need for us to have it back ported into Oracle jdk. Please attach the patch to the bug in case someone could push it through. Thanks, Egor On 14-Feb-18 17:58, Se?n Coffey wrote: > The patch has not been officially Reviewed. Chris already pointed that > out. As per standard process, please chase up the issue on the > serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net mailing list and seek an official > review from someone with Reviewer role [1]. Once complete, please seek > jdk8u push approval [2] > > I've logged https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8197943 to track > this. > > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#jdk8u > [2] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/approval-template.html > > Regards, > Sean. > > On 14/02/18 14:44, Egor Ushakov wrote: >> Thanks Se?n! >> >> This was discussed and accepted on serviceability-dev, you can see >> the comment by Chris Plummer below. >> Reattaching the patch that was lost in forwardings. >> >> Egor >> >> On 14-Feb-18 15:35, Se?n Coffey wrote: >>> Hi Egor, >>> >>> thanks for raising this issue. Code reviews for any new change >>> should be carried out on the relevant development mailing list. In >>> your case, you need to start a mail thread with >>> serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net >>> >>> Once a patch is agreed, please request integration on the jdk8u-dev >>> mailing list via the standard process : >>> >>> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/approval-template.html >>> >>> Feel free to ping me if you have any more questions on this approach. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Sean. >>> >>> On 14/02/18 11:35, Egor Ushakov wrote: >>>> Hi all, re-sending this here again, sorry for repeating. >>>> Can anyone in jdk8u-dev help with this? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Egor >>>> >>>> On 08-Feb-18 01:44, Chris Plummer wrote: >>>>> Hi Egor, >>>>> >>>>> [adding jdk8u-dev, which is where 8u backports are discussed] >>>>> >>>>> I think major.minor changed from 1.8 to 9.0, although I haven't >>>>> found the code to confirm that yet. I'm assuming this because of >>>>> the following code: >>>>> >>>>> ??? public boolean canGetModuleInfo() { >>>>> ??????? validateVM(); >>>>> ??????? return versionInfo().jdwpMajor >= 9; >>>>> ??? } >>>>> >>>>> Given that, your changes look correct. I'm not an 8u reviewer. >>>>> You'll need to get the official ok from someone on the 8u list. >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Chris >>>>> >>>>> On 2/5/18 7:44 AM, Egor Ushakov wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> in IDEA we faced an issue that when debugging java 9 process >>>>>> memory view does not work: >>>>>> https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/JRE-641 >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems that there's a bug in how >>>>>> VirtualMachineImpl.canGetInstanceInfo checks vm version (it does >>>>>> not pass jdk 9 where minor is 0): >>>>>> if(versionInfo().jdwpMajor <1|| >>>>>> versionInfo().jdwpMinor <6){ >>>>>> returnfalse; >>>>>> } >>>>>> I've found this fixed in jdk 9 inside the fix: >>>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs/rev/f900d5afd9c8 >>>>>> 8142968: Module System implementation Summary: Initial >>>>>> integration of JEP 200, JEP 260, JEP 261, and JEP 282 alanb >>>>>> 17-Mar-16 22:04 >>>>>> >>>>>> We've applied the part of the fix into our jdk 8 fork: >>>>>> https://github.com/JetBrains/jdk8u_jdk/commit/6424e2786e8adc4e012e0b7bd0cfc78ba1ab34dd >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems reasonable to backport at least this part into openjdk >>>>>> 8? What do you think? >>>>>> Maybe some other parts deserve backporting as well. >>>>>> I've attached the patch just in case. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Egor Ushakov >>>>>> Software Developer >>>>>> JetBrains >>>>>> http://www.jetbrains.com >>>>>> The Drive to Develop >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- Egor Ushakov Software Developer JetBrains http://www.jetbrains.com The Drive to Develop From ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com Thu Feb 15 20:05:37 2018 From: ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com (Ivan Gerasimov) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 12:05:37 -0800 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 8076117 : EndEntityChecker should not process custom extensions after PKIX validation Message-ID: <84b26ec8-1716-cb34-bfa3-8bfa23f12a48@oracle.com> Hello! I'd like to backport this fix to jdk8u-dev. The unshuffled patch applies cleanly. The patched jdk builds well on all platforms, the regression test pass Okay. No other regressions noticed. BUG: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076117 JDK 9 Change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/4614108d5295 JDK 9 Review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-April/012001.html Thanks in advance! -- With kind regards, Ivan Gerasimov From david.buck at oracle.com Fri Feb 16 00:48:04 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:48:04 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 8076117 : EndEntityChecker should not process custom extensions after PKIX validation In-Reply-To: <84b26ec8-1716-cb34-bfa3-8bfa23f12a48@oracle.com> References: <84b26ec8-1716-cb34-bfa3-8bfa23f12a48@oracle.com> Message-ID: <9e2445f9-38e5-794a-f934-0c8c5a458aa9@oracle.com> approved Cheers, -Buck On 2018/02/16 5:05, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Hello! > > I'd like to backport this fix to jdk8u-dev. > The unshuffled patch applies cleanly. > The patched jdk builds well on all platforms, the regression test pass > Okay. > No other regressions noticed. > > BUG: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076117 > > JDK 9 Change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/4614108d5295 > > JDK 9 Review: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-April/012001.html > > Thanks in advance! > From vaibhav.x.choudhary at oracle.com Mon Feb 19 15:09:36 2018 From: vaibhav.x.choudhary at oracle.com (Vaibhav Choudhary) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:39:36 +0530 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: Backport of 8153194: PreserveFPRegistersTest.java runs out of memory in the nightlies Message-ID: <9C0BC0E3-C6A5-4480-94ED-368CFC31AB5A@oracle.com> Hi, Please approve the backport of 8153194 to 8u-dev. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198351 JDK9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/6ab8be269224 JDK8 Review thread : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2018-February/028259.html JDK 8 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rpatil/8197534/webrev.01/ Note: The issue was logged under 8197534, but the reviewer said that we should push the code with the actual incident and as a backport of 8153194. Thanks, Vaibhav Choudhary From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Mon Feb 19 16:08:23 2018 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:08:23 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: Backport of 8153194: PreserveFPRegistersTest.java runs out of memory in the nightlies In-Reply-To: <9C0BC0E3-C6A5-4480-94ED-368CFC31AB5A@oracle.com> References: <9C0BC0E3-C6A5-4480-94ED-368CFC31AB5A@oracle.com> Message-ID: <20180219160823.GA4941@vimes> Approved -Rob On 19/02/18 20:39, Vaibhav Choudhary wrote: > Hi, > > Please approve the backport of 8153194 to 8u-dev. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198351 > JDK9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/6ab8be269224 > > JDK8 Review thread : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2018-February/028259.html > JDK 8 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rpatil/8197534/webrev.01/ > > Note: The issue was logged under 8197534, but the reviewer said that we should push the code with the actual incident and as a backport of 8153194. > > Thanks, > Vaibhav Choudhary > > > From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 07:41:21 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:41:21 +0000 Subject: [RFA] JDK-8194739 Zero port of 8174962: Better interface invocations Message-ID: Bug URL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8194739 Changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk-updates/jdk9u/hotspot/rev/a470bcec6bb OpenJDK 8 needs the same Zero fix for 8174962 as did 9, 10 and 11. Without this fix, OpenJDK 8 with Zero fails to build. Change applies to 8u unchanged. Ok to push? Thanks, -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From david.buck at oracle.com Tue Feb 20 07:59:54 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:59:54 +0900 Subject: [RFA] JDK-8194739 Zero port of 8174962: Better interface invocations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Andrew! Was there a public review [0] of the changes that were pushed into 9/10/11? Cheers, -Buck [0] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/approval-template.html On 2018/02/20 16:41, Andrew Hughes wrote: > Bug URL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8194739 > Changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk-updates/jdk9u/hotspot/rev/a470bcec6bb > > OpenJDK 8 needs the same Zero fix for 8174962 as did 9, 10 and 11. > Without this fix, OpenJDK 8 with Zero fails to build. > > Change applies to 8u unchanged. > > Ok to push? > > Thanks, > From adinn at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:00:44 2018 From: adinn at redhat.com (Andrew Dinn) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:00:44 +0000 Subject: [RFA] JDK-8194739 Zero port of 8174962: Better interface invocations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20/02/18 07:59, David Buck wrote: > Was there a public review [0] of the changes that were pushed into 9/10/11? [A different Andrew answers] Indeed there was a very long and convoluted review for the full patch and backport process -- this relates to the problems created when the latest CPU failed to incorporate all the necessary changes to make the final jdk9 function correctly. The review of this present patch starts here http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2018-January/029806.html and was oked by Coleen here http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2018-January/029818.html We (Red Hat) have applied this patch to our internal shenandoah and aarch64 jdk8 trees (downstream from jdk8u). It has also been applied ot jdk10 and the jdk/jdk and jdk/hs trees. the paper trails for those latter updates is available if you want but is not really releevant. regards, Andrew Dinn ----------- Senior Principal Software Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903 Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander From david.buck at oracle.com Tue Feb 20 10:16:21 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:16:21 +0900 Subject: [RFA] JDK-8194739 Zero port of 8174962: Better interface invocations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38e28a6d-02bb-1ddb-c2df-57d1c4efef64@oracle.com> Hi! Thank you for the code review thread link. I just added a noreg-build label to the bug report as well. Please consider this backport approved for 8u-dev. Cheers, -Buck On 2018/02/20 19:00, Andrew Dinn wrote: > On 20/02/18 07:59, David Buck wrote: >> Was there a public review [0] of the changes that were pushed into 9/10/11? > [A different Andrew answers] > > Indeed there was a very long and convoluted review for the full patch > and backport process -- this relates to the problems created when the > latest CPU failed to incorporate all the necessary changes to make the > final jdk9 function correctly. > > The review of this present patch starts here > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2018-January/029806.html > > and was oked by Coleen here > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2018-January/029818.html > > We (Red Hat) have applied this patch to our internal shenandoah and > aarch64 jdk8 trees (downstream from jdk8u). It has also been applied ot > jdk10 and the jdk/jdk and jdk/hs trees. the paper trails for those > latter updates is available if you want but is not really releevant. > > regards, > > > Andrew Dinn > ----------- > Senior Principal Software Engineer > Red Hat UK Ltd > Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903 > Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander > From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 20:45:58 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 20:45:58 +0000 Subject: [RFA] JDK-8194739 Zero port of 8174962: Better interface invocations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20 February 2018 at 07:59, David Buck wrote: > Hi Andrew! > > Was there a public review [0] of the changes that were pushed into 9/10/11? > > Cheers, > -Buck > Thanks to Andrew Dinn for replying with the details. I presumed that a changeset already present in OpenJDK 9 with Reviewed-by tags would be sufficient evidence as it has been in the past. It meets all the requirements of [0], given that #3 and #4 are not applicable for an approval of a clean backport, rather than an 8u patch review. If a link to a review thread for another release is required, then it should be listed on that page. I've now pushed the change [1] so Zero should build again. [0] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/approval-template.html [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/hotspot/rev/8bd024c567e7 Thanks, -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From ramkumar.sunderbabu at oracle.com Wed Feb 21 05:43:08 2018 From: ramkumar.sunderbabu at oracle.com (Ramkumar Sunderbabu) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:43:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for Backport of CR JDK-8068778: [TESTBUG] CompressedClassSpaceSizeInJmapHeap.java fails if SA not available Message-ID: Hi, Please approve the backport of 8068778 to 8u-dev. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068778 JDK9 Changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/031ed3504352 The change in JDK9 would be taken as is. Thanks, Ram From ramkumar.sunderbabu at oracle.com Wed Feb 21 06:43:54 2018 From: ramkumar.sunderbabu at oracle.com (Ramkumar Sunderbabu) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 22:43:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for Backport of CR JDK-8068778: [TESTBUG] CompressedClassSpaceSizeInJmapHeap.java fails if SA not available Message-ID: <8d1d67e8-bec5-4926-8a56-56378c8f5033@default> JDK9 public review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-all-changes/2015-January/007436.html Thanks, Ram From: Ramkumar Sunderbabu [mailto:ramkumar.sunderbabu at oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 11:13 AM To: 'jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net' Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for Backport of CR JDK-8068778: [TESTBUG] CompressedClassSpaceSizeInJmapHeap.java fails if SA not available Hi, Please approve the backport of 8068778 to 8u-dev. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068778 JDK9 Changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/031ed3504352 The change in JDK9 would be taken as is. Thanks, Ram From david.buck at oracle.com Wed Feb 21 07:53:18 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:53:18 +0900 Subject: [RFA] JDK-8194739 Zero port of 8174962: Better interface invocations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6A274B3C-BDD2-4B66-BC56-433406621041@oracle.com> Hi Andrew! Perhaps we can make the RFA template clearer. I will bring this up with the other maintainers. While there may be examples where this rule was not strictly enforced in the past, every RFA should include a link to any available public review. It is not so much to ?prove? that they original change was properly reviewed, but to make it as easy and as quick as possible for everyone involved to find and review any technical discussion around the original fix that might be of concern to back porting the fix. (For example, code reviews often include discussion of any risk posed by the change.) The idea is to make it easier to find this information. When the list is very active / busy, the time saved trying to hunt down each review thread can really add up. BTW, thank you for fixing this issue in JDK 8. I am relived to hear that Zero is building again. Cheers, -Buck > On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:45, Andrew Hughes wrote: > > On 20 February 2018 at 07:59, David Buck wrote: >> Hi Andrew! >> >> Was there a public review [0] of the changes that were pushed into 9/10/11? >> >> Cheers, >> -Buck >> > > Thanks to Andrew Dinn for replying with the details. I presumed that > a changeset already present in OpenJDK 9 with Reviewed-by tags > would be sufficient evidence as it has been in the past. It meets all the > requirements of [0], given that #3 and #4 are not applicable for an > approval of a clean backport, rather than an 8u patch review. If a link > to a review thread for another release is required, then it should be listed > on that page. > > I've now pushed the change [1] so Zero should build again. > > [0] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/approval-template.html > [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/hotspot/rev/8bd024c567e7 > > Thanks, > -- > Andrew :) > > Senior Free Java Software Engineer > Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) > > Web Site: http://fuseyism.com > Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java > PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) > Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From ramkumar.sunderbabu at oracle.com Wed Feb 21 09:04:02 2018 From: ramkumar.sunderbabu at oracle.com (Ramkumar Sunderbabu) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 01:04:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for Backport of CR JDK-8068778: [TESTBUG] CompressedClassSpaceSizeInJmapHeap.java fails if SA not available Message-ID: <95698c8e-5d9c-413b-9d37-1ccd6da9ac9e@default> Here's the correct JDK9 public review thread http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2015-January/016465.html Thanks, Ram From: Ramkumar Sunderbabu [mailto:ramkumar.sunderbabu at oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 12:14 PM To: 'jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net' Subject: RE: [8u-dev] Request for approval for Backport of CR JDK-8068778: [TESTBUG] CompressedClassSpaceSizeInJmapHeap.java fails if SA not available JDK9 public review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-all-changes/2015-January/007436.html Thanks, Ram From: Ramkumar Sunderbabu [mailto:ramkumar.sunderbabu at oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 11:13 AM To: 'jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net' Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for Backport of CR JDK-8068778: [TESTBUG] CompressedClassSpaceSizeInJmapHeap.java fails if SA not available Hi, Please approve the backport of 8068778 to 8u-dev. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068778 JDK9 Changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/031ed3504352 The change in JDK9 would be taken as is. Thanks, Ram From david.buck at oracle.com Wed Feb 21 09:16:02 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:16:02 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for Backport of CR JDK-8068778: [TESTBUG] CompressedClassSpaceSizeInJmapHeap.java fails if SA not available In-Reply-To: <95698c8e-5d9c-413b-9d37-1ccd6da9ac9e@default> References: <95698c8e-5d9c-413b-9d37-1ccd6da9ac9e@default> Message-ID: approved Cheers, -Buck > On Feb 21, 2018, at 18:04, Ramkumar Sunderbabu wrote: > > Here's the correct JDK9 public review thread > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2015-January/016465.html > > > > Thanks, > > Ram > > > > From: Ramkumar Sunderbabu [mailto:ramkumar.sunderbabu at oracle.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 12:14 PM > To: 'jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net' > Subject: RE: [8u-dev] Request for approval for Backport of CR JDK-8068778: [TESTBUG] CompressedClassSpaceSizeInJmapHeap.java fails if SA not available > > > > JDK9 public review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-all-changes/2015-January/007436.html > > > > Thanks, > > Ram > > > > From: Ramkumar Sunderbabu [mailto:ramkumar.sunderbabu at oracle.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 11:13 AM > To: 'jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net' > Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for Backport of CR JDK-8068778: [TESTBUG] CompressedClassSpaceSizeInJmapHeap.java fails if SA not available > > > > Hi, > > Please approve the backport of 8068778 to 8u-dev. > > > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068778 > > JDK9 Changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/031ed3504352 > > > > The change in JDK9 would be taken as is. > > > > Thanks, > > Ram > > From martinrb at google.com Wed Feb 21 21:01:26 2018 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:01:26 -0800 Subject: [RFA] JDK-8194739 Zero port of 8174962: Better interface invocations In-Reply-To: <6A274B3C-BDD2-4B66-BC56-433406621041@oracle.com> References: <6A274B3C-BDD2-4B66-BC56-433406621041@oracle.com> Message-ID: The best tool for searching openjdk mailing lists is http://openjdk.markmail.org/ But not every mailing list is indexed by the fine folk at markmail. (Notably jdk8u-dev is not.) Y'all should talk to markmail.org to fix that. Then searches by bug id are as simple as http://openjdk.markmail.org/search/?q=NNNNNNN On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:53 PM, David Buck wrote: > Hi Andrew! > > Perhaps we can make the RFA template clearer. I will bring this up with > the other maintainers. > > While there may be examples where this rule was not strictly enforced in > the past, every RFA should include a link to any available public review. > It is not so much to ?prove? that they original change was properly > reviewed, but to make it as easy and as quick as possible for everyone > involved to find and review any technical discussion around the original > fix that might be of concern to back porting the fix. (For example, code > reviews often include discussion of any risk posed by the change.) The idea > is to make it easier to find this information. When the list is very active > / busy, the time saved trying to hunt down each review thread can really > add up. > > BTW, thank you for fixing this issue in JDK 8. I am relived to hear that > Zero is building again. > > Cheers, > -Buck > > > On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:45, Andrew Hughes wrote: > > > > On 20 February 2018 at 07:59, David Buck wrote: > >> Hi Andrew! > >> > >> Was there a public review [0] of the changes that were pushed into > 9/10/11? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> -Buck > >> > > > > Thanks to Andrew Dinn for replying with the details. I presumed that > > a changeset already present in OpenJDK 9 with Reviewed-by tags > > would be sufficient evidence as it has been in the past. It meets all the > > requirements of [0], given that #3 and #4 are not applicable for an > > approval of a clean backport, rather than an 8u patch review. If a link > > to a review thread for another release is required, then it should be > listed > > on that page. > > > > I've now pushed the change [1] so Zero should build again. > > > > [0] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/approval-template.html > > [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/hotspot/rev/8bd024c567e7 > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Andrew :) > > > > Senior Free Java Software Engineer > > Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) > > > > Web Site: http://fuseyism.com > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java > > PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) > > Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 > > From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 03:50:38 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 03:50:38 +0000 Subject: [RFA] JDK-8194739 Zero port of 8174962: Better interface invocations In-Reply-To: <6A274B3C-BDD2-4B66-BC56-433406621041@oracle.com> References: <6A274B3C-BDD2-4B66-BC56-433406621041@oracle.com> Message-ID: On 21 February 2018 at 07:53, David Buck wrote: > Hi Andrew! > > Perhaps we can make the RFA template clearer. I will bring this up with the other maintainers. > > While there may be examples where this rule was not strictly enforced in the past, every RFA should include a link to any available public review. It is not so much to ?prove? that they original change was properly reviewed, but to make it as easy and as quick as possible for everyone involved to find and review any technical discussion around the original fix that might be of concern to back porting the fix. (For example, code reviews often include discussion of any risk posed by the change.) The idea is to make it easier to find this information. When the list is very active / busy, the time saved trying to hunt down each review thread can really add up. > Yes, my issue was more with the template than about being asked for the information. I would have gladly provided it from the start if I'd been prompted to do so. I agree it's very useful to read through the original review and see how the patch was developed and why certain choices were made. My worry about the move to using the bug system rather than a mailing list with future updates is that the same discussion doesn't really occur there and what is posted is to a smaller audience who are aware of that bug. > BTW, thank you for fixing this issue in JDK 8. I am relived to hear that Zero is building again. > No problem. I actually found another issue which needs fixing as well. I'll post that in a separate thread. > Cheers, > -Buck > Cheers, -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 04:01:42 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 04:01:42 +0000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of Backport of JDK-8078628: linux-zero does not build without precompiled header Message-ID: [CCing hotspot list for review] Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8078628 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8078628/webrev.01/ Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2015-April/018239.html When testing a slowdebug build of Zero for the backport of 8194739, my build failed because I don't have pre-compiled headers enabled. It seems this was fixed in OpenJDK 9, but never backported. The backported version is pretty similar with a few adjustments for context in the older OpenJDK 8 version. The src/cpu/zero/vm/methodHandles_zero.hpp are my own addition from the same fix I came up with independently, and stops multiple inclusions of that header. Please review and approve for OpenJDK 8 so Zero builds without precompiled headers work there. Thanks, -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 04:09:52 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 04:09:52 +0000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of JDK-8196952: Bad primeCertainty value setting in DSAParameterGenerator Message-ID: Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8196952 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8196952/webrev.01/ Review thread: N/A When merging the recent 8u161 update into IcedTea, I came across a merge issue related to the ordering of changes to DSAParameterGenerator. It's an issue only relevant to OpenJDK 8 and any further backports that use the version from that repository. In OpenJDK 9 and up, the work in 8072452 was done in April 2016, and 8181048 in July 2017. However, in OpenJDK 8, 8072452 was not present when 8181048 was backported in July 2017, and was only added in the last CPU. As a result, the two changes were applied there in the opposite order and 8072452 ended up reverting parts of 8181048. The main issue is that 8181048 has this change: - int primeCertainty = 80; // for 1024-bit prime P - if (valueL == 2048) { + int primeCertainty = -1; + if (valueL <= 1024) { + primeCertainty = 80; + } else if (valueL == 2048) { But then the backport of 8072452 reverts part of it: @@ -205,11 +206,13 @@ int b = (valueL - 1) % outLen; byte[] seedBytes = new byte[seedLen/8]; BigInteger twoSl = TWO.pow(seedLen); - int primeCertainty = -1; + int primeCertainty = 80; // for 1024-bit prime P if (valueL <= 1024) { primeCertainty = 80; } else if (valueL == 2048) { primeCertainty = 112; + } else if (valueL == 3072) { + primeCertainty = 128; } if (primeCertainty < 0) { So primeCertainty is never going to be < 0. The other differences are minor, but help keep the code in sync with OpenJDK 9 and slightly more efficient; we don't bother setting valueN in the if block as it will be reset by the call to getDefDSASubprimeSize anyway, and we use BigInteger.ONE instead of creating our own version. Sadly, BigInteger.TWO is not public in OpenJDK 8 so we still need a local variable for that. As stated above, the patch is inapplicable for 9 and up, so needs a review and approval for OpenJDK 8. Thanks, -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From thomas.stuefe at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 13:58:02 2018 From: thomas.stuefe at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Thomas_St=C3=BCfe?=) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:58:02 +0100 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of Backport of JDK-8078628: linux-zero does not build without precompiled header In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Looks good. Should the include guard for src/cpu/zero/vm/methodHandles_zero.hpp also added to jdk9? Note that I am no reviewer for jdk8, only 9++. Regards, Thomas On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:01 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote: > [CCing hotspot list for review] > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8078628 > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8078628/webrev.01/ > Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2015- > April/018239.html > > When testing a slowdebug build of Zero for the backport of 8194739, my > build > failed because I don't have pre-compiled headers enabled. It seems this > was fixed in OpenJDK 9, but never backported. > > The backported version is pretty similar with a few adjustments for context > in the older OpenJDK 8 version. The src/cpu/zero/vm/methodHandles_zero.hpp > are my own addition from the same fix I came up with independently, and > stops > multiple inclusions of that header. > > Please review and approve for OpenJDK 8 so Zero builds without > precompiled headers > work there. > > Thanks, > -- > Andrew :) > > Senior Free Java Software Engineer > Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) > > Web Site: http://fuseyism.com > Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java > PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) > Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 > From sean.coffey at oracle.com Thu Feb 22 14:38:50 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:38:50 +0000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of JDK-8196952: Bad primeCertainty value setting in DSAParameterGenerator In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for looking at this one Andrew. I've had it on my to-do list. The patch looks fine. Regards, Sean. On 22/02/18 04:09, Andrew Hughes wrote: > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8196952 > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8196952/webrev.01/ > Review thread: N/A > > When merging the recent 8u161 update into IcedTea, I came across > a merge issue related to the ordering of changes to DSAParameterGenerator. > > It's an issue only relevant to OpenJDK 8 and any further backports that > use the version from that repository. > > In OpenJDK 9 and up, the work in 8072452 was done in April 2016, > and 8181048 in July 2017. > > However, in OpenJDK 8, 8072452 was not present when 8181048 > was backported in July 2017, and was only added in the last CPU. > As a result, the two changes were applied there in the opposite order > and 8072452 ended up reverting parts of 8181048. > > The main issue is that 8181048 has this change: > > - int primeCertainty = 80; // for 1024-bit prime P > - if (valueL == 2048) { > + int primeCertainty = -1; > + if (valueL <= 1024) { > + primeCertainty = 80; > + } else if (valueL == 2048) { > > But then the backport of 8072452 reverts part of it: > > @@ -205,11 +206,13 @@ > int b = (valueL - 1) % outLen; > byte[] seedBytes = new byte[seedLen/8]; > BigInteger twoSl = TWO.pow(seedLen); > - int primeCertainty = -1; > + int primeCertainty = 80; // for 1024-bit prime P > if (valueL <= 1024) { > primeCertainty = 80; > } else if (valueL == 2048) { > primeCertainty = 112; > + } else if (valueL == 3072) { > + primeCertainty = 128; > } > > if (primeCertainty < 0) { > > So primeCertainty is never going to be < 0. > > The other differences are minor, but help keep the code in > sync with OpenJDK 9 and slightly more efficient; we don't > bother setting valueN in the if block as it will be reset by > the call to getDefDSASubprimeSize anyway, and we > use BigInteger.ONE instead of creating our own version. > Sadly, BigInteger.TWO is not public in OpenJDK 8 so we > still need a local variable for that. > > As stated above, the patch is inapplicable for 9 and up, > so needs a review and approval for OpenJDK 8. > > Thanks, From david.holmes at oracle.com Fri Feb 23 00:40:56 2018 From: david.holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 10:40:56 +1000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of Backport of JDK-8078628: linux-zero does not build without precompiled header In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22c8ef87-9dd8-e488-23c7-631caa8683b5@oracle.com> Hi Andrew, The imported copyright year changes need to be updated to reflect current year. The ifdef cleanups seem fine. The actual include changes also seem fine. I assume non-zero builds havfe also been tested? Thanks, David On 22/02/2018 2:01 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: > [CCing hotspot list for review] > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8078628 > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8078628/webrev.01/ > Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2015-April/018239.html > > When testing a slowdebug build of Zero for the backport of 8194739, my build > failed because I don't have pre-compiled headers enabled. It seems this > was fixed in OpenJDK 9, but never backported. > > The backported version is pretty similar with a few adjustments for context > in the older OpenJDK 8 version. The src/cpu/zero/vm/methodHandles_zero.hpp > are my own addition from the same fix I came up with independently, and stops > multiple inclusions of that header. > > Please review and approve for OpenJDK 8 so Zero builds without > precompiled headers > work there. > > Thanks, > From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 05:38:25 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 05:38:25 +0000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of JDK-8196952: Bad primeCertainty value setting in DSAParameterGenerator In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22 February 2018 at 14:38, Se?n Coffey wrote: > Thanks for looking at this one Andrew. I've had it on my to-do list. > > The patch looks fine. > > Regards, > Sean. > Thanks. I had the patch around from fixing it in OpenJDK 7 so thought I may as well post it. Pushed: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/jdk/rev/f940e7a48b72 Regards, -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 05:39:54 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 05:39:54 +0000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of Backport of JDK-8078628: linux-zero does not build without precompiled header In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22 February 2018 at 13:58, Thomas St?fe wrote: > Looks good. Should the include guard for > src/cpu/zero/vm/methodHandles_zero.hpp also added to jdk9? > > Note that I am no reviewer for jdk8, only 9++. > > Regards, Thomas > Hmm... that's a good point I hadn't considered. Maybe I should split that out into a separate fix and apply it to 9 as well? The rest is already in 9 as part of your changes. -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 05:51:06 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 05:51:06 +0000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of Backport of JDK-8078628: linux-zero does not build without precompiled header In-Reply-To: <22c8ef87-9dd8-e488-23c7-631caa8683b5@oracle.com> References: <22c8ef87-9dd8-e488-23c7-631caa8683b5@oracle.com> Message-ID: On 23 February 2018 at 00:40, David Holmes wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > The imported copyright year changes need to be updated to reflect current > year. > The changes were actually my own rather than being part of the import, and 2015 is used because that's when the original patch was written. I assume in 9 the current year was already in use. In backporting patches, I've always kept the copyright dates used in the patch as I don't believe that moving a patch from one tree to another warrants new copyright. Is there a policy on handling this? > The ifdef cleanups seem fine. > > The actual include changes also seem fine. > > I assume non-zero builds havfe also been tested? > Yes, they're fine. I should mention that the patch has been in IcedTea for at least a year, so it's had a far bit of testing already on different builds. > Thanks, > David > Thanks, -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From david.holmes at oracle.com Fri Feb 23 06:17:21 2018 From: david.holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:17:21 +1000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of Backport of JDK-8078628: linux-zero does not build without precompiled header In-Reply-To: References: <22c8ef87-9dd8-e488-23c7-631caa8683b5@oracle.com> Message-ID: <633c1920-f5cf-115a-2b5b-6a9c96ace131@oracle.com> On 23/02/2018 3:51 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: > On 23 February 2018 at 00:40, David Holmes wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >> The imported copyright year changes need to be updated to reflect current >> year. >> > > The changes were actually my own rather than being part of the import, and > 2015 is used because that's when the original patch was written. I assume > in 9 the current year was already in use. In backporting patches, I've > always kept > the copyright dates used in the patch as I don't believe that moving a > patch from > one tree to another warrants new copyright. Is there a policy on handling this? Our internal policy is that any change to a file requires we update the copyright year. If you refactor code you move it from one file to another but that still requires a copyright update. Cheers, David >> The ifdef cleanups seem fine. >> >> The actual include changes also seem fine. >> >> I assume non-zero builds havfe also been tested? >> > > Yes, they're fine. I should mention that the patch has been in IcedTea > for at least > a year, so it's had a far bit of testing already on different builds. > >> Thanks, >> David >> > > Thanks, > From sean.coffey at oracle.com Fri Feb 23 08:27:40 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:27:40 +0000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of JDK-8196952: Bad primeCertainty value setting in DSAParameterGenerator In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a185546-6a28-88e2-06db-e81aadc078c7@oracle.com> On 23/02/2018 05:38, Andrew Hughes wrote: > On 22 February 2018 at 14:38, Se?n Coffey wrote: >> Thanks for looking at this one Andrew. I've had it on my to-do list. >> >> The patch looks fine. >> >> Regards, >> Sean. >> > Thanks. I had the patch around from fixing it in OpenJDK 7 so thought I may > as well post it. > > Pushed: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/jdk/rev/f940e7a48b72 There was no push approval request made for this fix. To keep with the current process, can you log one : http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/approval-template.html thanks, Sean. > > Regards, From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 06:01:49 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 06:01:49 +0000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of Backport of JDK-8078628: linux-zero does not build without precompiled header In-Reply-To: <633c1920-f5cf-115a-2b5b-6a9c96ace131@oracle.com> References: <22c8ef87-9dd8-e488-23c7-631caa8683b5@oracle.com> <633c1920-f5cf-115a-2b5b-6a9c96ace131@oracle.com> Message-ID: On 23 February 2018 at 06:17, David Holmes wrote: ... > > Our internal policy is that any change to a file requires we update the > copyright year. > > If you refactor code you move it from one file to another but that still > requires a copyright update. > > Cheers, > David > > And it has been updated; to the year the changes were made. To change it to the current year would be a lie as that's not when these changes were made or published. -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 06:05:54 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 06:05:54 +0000 Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for JDK-8196952: Bad primeCertainty value setting in DSAParameterGenerator Message-ID: For the sake of admin... Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8196952 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8196952/webrev.01/ Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-February/007255.html -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 06:07:35 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 06:07:35 +0000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of JDK-8196952: Bad primeCertainty value setting in DSAParameterGenerator In-Reply-To: <2a185546-6a28-88e2-06db-e81aadc078c7@oracle.com> References: <2a185546-6a28-88e2-06db-e81aadc078c7@oracle.com> Message-ID: On 23 February 2018 at 08:27, Se?n Coffey wrote: ... >> >> Pushed: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/jdk/rev/f940e7a48b72 > > There was no push approval request made for this fix. To keep with the > current process, can you log one : > http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/approval-template.html > > thanks, > Sean. >> >> >> Regards, > > Huh? I did say "so needs a review and approval for OpenJDK 8" [0]. If it really needs a separate thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-February/007265.html [0] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-February/007255.html -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From david.holmes at oracle.com Mon Feb 26 06:14:44 2018 From: david.holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:14:44 +1000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of Backport of JDK-8078628: linux-zero does not build without precompiled header In-Reply-To: References: <22c8ef87-9dd8-e488-23c7-631caa8683b5@oracle.com> <633c1920-f5cf-115a-2b5b-6a9c96ace131@oracle.com> Message-ID: <83890746-491e-4692-4a26-7e831825de65@oracle.com> On 26/02/2018 4:01 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: > On 23 February 2018 at 06:17, David Holmes wrote: > > ... > >> >> Our internal policy is that any change to a file requires we update the >> copyright year. >> >> If you refactor code you move it from one file to another but that still >> requires a copyright update. >> >> Cheers, >> David >> >> > > And it has been updated; to the year the changes were made. That's not the rule we (Oracle) have. > To change it to the current year would be a lie as that's not when > these changes were made or published. It's when they were made/published in _this_ file and the copyright is applied to the file. Always frustrating that what should be a simple set of rules easily expressed and clearly written down, never are because they are the domain of the lawyers. :( David From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Mon Feb 26 15:25:59 2018 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:25:59 +0000 Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for JDK-8196952: Bad primeCertainty value setting in DSAParameterGenerator In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180226152559.GB3802@vimes> Approved -Rob On 26/02/18 06:05, Andrew Hughes wrote: > For the sake of admin... > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8196952 > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8196952/webrev.01/ > Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-February/007255.html > -- > Andrew :) > > Senior Free Java Software Engineer > Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) > > Web Site: http://fuseyism.com > Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java > PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) > Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:19:05 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:19:05 +0000 Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for JDK-8196952: Bad primeCertainty value setting in DSAParameterGenerator In-Reply-To: <20180226152559.GB3802@vimes> References: <20180226152559.GB3802@vimes> Message-ID: On 26 February 2018 at 15:25, Rob McKenna wrote: > Approved > > -Rob > > On 26/02/18 06:05, Andrew Hughes wrote: >> For the sake of admin... >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8196952 >> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8196952/webrev.01/ >> Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-February/007255.html >> -- >> Andrew :) >> >> Senior Free Java Software Engineer >> Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) >> >> Web Site: http://fuseyism.com >> Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java >> PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) >> Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 Thanks and sorry for the confusion. I assumed Sean's ACK was for both. -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 18:58:37 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 18:58:37 +0000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of Backport of JDK-8078628: linux-zero does not build without precompiled header In-Reply-To: <83890746-491e-4692-4a26-7e831825de65@oracle.com> References: <22c8ef87-9dd8-e488-23c7-631caa8683b5@oracle.com> <633c1920-f5cf-115a-2b5b-6a9c96ace131@oracle.com> <83890746-491e-4692-4a26-7e831825de65@oracle.com> Message-ID: On 26 February 2018 at 06:14, David Holmes wrote: > On 26/02/2018 4:01 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: >> >> On 23 February 2018 at 06:17, David Holmes >> wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> >>> Our internal policy is that any change to a file requires we update the >>> copyright year. >>> >>> If you refactor code you move it from one file to another but that still >>> requires a copyright update. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> David >>> >>> >> >> And it has been updated; to the year the changes were made. > > > That's not the rule we (Oracle) have. > >> To change it to the current year would be a lie as that's not when >> these changes were made or published. > > > It's when they were made/published in _this_ file and the copyright is > applied to the file. > > Always frustrating that what should be a simple set of rules easily > expressed and clearly written down, never are because they are the domain of > the lawyers. :( > > David I guess it was a mistake to apply logic to legal reasoning. It seldom works out happily. Here's a revised version with the current year used. thread.hpp already has the current year, thanks to 8189170. I also dropped the guard changes in src/cpu/zero/vm/methodHandles_zero.hpp as it makes more sense to do that under a separate bug and patch, which includes the newer versions too. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8078628/webrev.02 Thanks, -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From david.holmes at oracle.com Tue Feb 27 04:04:37 2018 From: david.holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:04:37 +1000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of Backport of JDK-8078628: linux-zero does not build without precompiled header In-Reply-To: References: <22c8ef87-9dd8-e488-23c7-631caa8683b5@oracle.com> <633c1920-f5cf-115a-2b5b-6a9c96ace131@oracle.com> <83890746-491e-4692-4a26-7e831825de65@oracle.com> Message-ID: <38fc8a5d-c1ec-264f-f381-8778acd81528@oracle.com> Thanks Andrew! Reviewed. David On 27/02/2018 4:58 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote: > On 26 February 2018 at 06:14, David Holmes wrote: >> On 26/02/2018 4:01 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: >>> >>> On 23 February 2018 at 06:17, David Holmes >>> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> >>>> Our internal policy is that any change to a file requires we update the >>>> copyright year. >>>> >>>> If you refactor code you move it from one file to another but that still >>>> requires a copyright update. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>> >>> And it has been updated; to the year the changes were made. >> >> >> That's not the rule we (Oracle) have. >> >>> To change it to the current year would be a lie as that's not when >>> these changes were made or published. >> >> >> It's when they were made/published in _this_ file and the copyright is >> applied to the file. >> >> Always frustrating that what should be a simple set of rules easily >> expressed and clearly written down, never are because they are the domain of >> the lawyers. :( >> >> David > > I guess it was a mistake to apply logic to legal reasoning. It seldom > works out happily. > > Here's a revised version with the current year used. thread.hpp already has > the current year, thanks to 8189170. I also dropped the guard changes in > src/cpu/zero/vm/methodHandles_zero.hpp as it makes more sense to do > that under a separate bug and patch, which includes the newer versions too. > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8078628/webrev.02 > > Thanks, > From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 04:53:44 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 04:53:44 +0000 Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for JDK-8078628: linux-zero does not build without precompiled header Message-ID: Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8078628 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8078628/webrev.02/ Original review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2015-April/018239.html 8u review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-February/007254.html Thanks, -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 04:54:37 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 04:54:37 +0000 Subject: [8u] [RFR] Request for Review of Backport of JDK-8078628: linux-zero does not build without precompiled header In-Reply-To: <38fc8a5d-c1ec-264f-f381-8778acd81528@oracle.com> References: <22c8ef87-9dd8-e488-23c7-631caa8683b5@oracle.com> <633c1920-f5cf-115a-2b5b-6a9c96ace131@oracle.com> <83890746-491e-4692-4a26-7e831825de65@oracle.com> <38fc8a5d-c1ec-264f-f381-8778acd81528@oracle.com> Message-ID: On 27 February 2018 at 04:04, David Holmes wrote: > Thanks Andrew! Reviewed. > > David > Thanks :) Approval request sent: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-February/007272.html -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Tue Feb 27 14:20:55 2018 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:20:55 +0000 Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for JDK-8078628: linux-zero does not build without precompiled header In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180227142055.GB4548@vimes> Approved -Rob On 27/02/18 04:53, Andrew Hughes wrote: > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8078628 > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8078628/webrev.02/ > Original review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2015-April/018239.html > 8u review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-February/007254.html > > Thanks, > -- > Andrew :) > > Senior Free Java Software Engineer > Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) > > Web Site: http://fuseyism.com > Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java > PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) > Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 05:48:22 2018 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:48:22 +0000 Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for JDK-8078628: linux-zero does not build without precompiled header In-Reply-To: <20180227142055.GB4548@vimes> References: <20180227142055.GB4548@vimes> Message-ID: On 27 February 2018 at 14:20, Rob McKenna wrote: > Approved > > -Rob > > On 27/02/18 04:53, Andrew Hughes wrote: >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8078628 >> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8078628/webrev.02/ >> Original review thread: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2015-April/018239.html >> 8u review thread: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-February/007254.html >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Andrew :) >> >> Senior Free Java Software Engineer >> Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) >> >> Web Site: http://fuseyism.com >> Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java >> PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) >> Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 Thanks. Pushed: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/hotspot/rev/c6b5a99cea9e -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Web Site: http://fuseyism.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 From sean.coffey at oracle.com Wed Feb 28 12:38:59 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:38:59 +0000 Subject: [RFA] JDK-8194739 Zero port of 8174962: Better interface invocations In-Reply-To: References: <6A274B3C-BDD2-4B66-BC56-433406621041@oracle.com> Message-ID: <0a37ce40-e041-fb91-4e1c-abcc11b9e93c@oracle.com> The trend has been to include a pointer to code review for any fix being made in the JDK 8 Updates Project. The push approval request template does outline it as a requirement. We can clarify this point to indicate that where an identical patch is being backported, then a pointer to the original code review should be included. The template and JDK 8 Updates ground rules need updating in any case. References are made to a fix being required in JDK 9 before being ported to JDK 8 Updates. With the new JDK release model, this is no longer a requirement. I'll submit suggested changes in a new mail thread shortly. regards, Sean. On 22/02/2018 03:50, Andrew Hughes wrote: > On 21 February 2018 at 07:53, David Buck wrote: >> Hi Andrew! >> >> Perhaps we can make the RFA template clearer. I will bring this up with the other maintainers. >> >> While there may be examples where this rule was not strictly enforced in the past, every RFA should include a link to any available public review. It is not so much to ?prove? that they original change was properly reviewed, but to make it as easy and as quick as possible for everyone involved to find and review any technical discussion around the original fix that might be of concern to back porting the fix. (For example, code reviews often include discussion of any risk posed by the change.) The idea is to make it easier to find this information. When the list is very active / busy, the time saved trying to hunt down each review thread can really add up. >> > Yes, my issue was more with the template than about being asked for > the information. > I would have gladly provided it from the start if I'd been prompted to do so. > > I agree it's very useful to read through the original review and see > how the patch > was developed and why certain choices were made. My worry about the move to > using the bug system rather than a mailing list with future updates is > that the same > discussion doesn't really occur there and what is posted is to a > smaller audience > who are aware of that bug. > From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Wed Feb 28 12:36:55 2018 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 13:36:55 +0100 Subject: [RFA] JDK-8194739 Zero port of 8174962: Better interface invocations In-Reply-To: References: <6A274B3C-BDD2-4B66-BC56-433406621041@oracle.com> Message-ID: On 21.02.2018 22:01, Martin Buchholz wrote: > The best tool for searching openjdk mailing lists is > http://openjdk.markmail.org/ Indeed. > But not every mailing list is indexed by the fine folk at markmail. The current list of lists indexed by Markmail seems to be [0]. > (Notably jdk8u-dev is not.) > Y'all should talk to markmail.org to fix that. Yeah, that's what http://openjdk.markmail.org/docs/feedback.xqy is for. I've done that a while ago for the jdk8u-dev mailing list, but it seems that it didn't get added for some reason or another. So I filed another addition request today for jdk8u-dev, jdk-dev and jdk-updates-dev. Please let me know if other actively used mailing lists are missing, and I can do the same there. cheers, dalibor topic [0] 1) net.java.openjdk.core-libs-dev 48,548 2) net.java.openjdk.distro-pkg-dev 37,829 3) net.java.openjdk.hotspot-dev 29,041 4) net.java.openjdk.hotspot-compiler-dev 27,083 5) net.java.openjdk.hotspot-runtime-dev 25,189 6) net.java.openjdk.serviceability-dev 21,388 7) net.java.openjdk.hotspot-gc-dev 20,298 8) net.java.openjdk.build-dev 19,827 9) net.java.openjdk.openjfx-dev 19,059 10) net.java.openjdk.jdk7-changes 17,212 11) net.java.openjdk.security-dev 15,777 12) net.java.openjdk.jigsaw-dev 13,567 13) net.java.openjdk.awt-dev 12,661 14) net.java.openjdk.compiler-dev 10,843 15) net.java.openjdk.net-dev 10,512 16) net.java.openjdk.2d-dev 8,590 17) net.java.openjdk.swing-dev 8,121 18) net.java.openjdk.macosx-port-dev 6,773 19) net.java.openjdk.mlvm-dev 6,672 20) net.java.openjdk.jdk7u-dev 6,353 21) net.java.openjdk.lambda-dev 6,257 22) net.java.openjdk.jdk8-changes 5,581 23) net.java.openjdk.graal-dev 4,779 24) net.java.openjdk.discuss 4,594 25) net.java.openjdk.nio-dev 4,562 26) net.java.openjdk.build-infra-dev 4,510 27) net.java.openjdk.icedtea-test 3,983 28) net.java.openjdk.jdk6-dev 3,562 29) net.java.openjdk.bsd-port-dev 3,129 30) net.java.openjdk.ppc-aix-port-dev 2,931 31) net.java.openjdk.hotspot-gc-use 2,637 32) net.java.openjdk.jdk8-dev 2,355 33) net.java.openjdk.i18n-dev 2,340 34) net.java.openjdk.jdk7-dev 2,329 35) net.java.openjdk.type-annotations-dev 1,563 36) net.java.openjdk.coin-dev 1,487 37) net.java.openjdk.modules-dev 883 38) net.java.openjdk.jmx-dev 828 39) net.java.openjdk.members 769 40) net.java.openjdk.nio-discuss 728 41) net.java.openjdk.quality-discuss 695 42) net.java.openjdk.porters-dev 611 43) net.java.openjdk.closures-dev 602 44) net.java.openjdk.sound-dev 594 45) net.java.openjdk.jtreg-dev 585 46) net.java.openjdk.zero-dev 564 47) net.java.openjdk.caciocavallo-dev 558 48) net.java.openjdk.jtreg-use 541 49) net.java.openjdk.icedtea-changes 509 50) net.java.openjdk.web-discuss 505 51) net.java.openjdk.javadoc-dev 433 52) net.java.openjdk.graphics-rasterizer-dev 411 53) net.java.openjdk.beans-dev 350 54) net.java.openjdk.gb-discuss 323 55) net.java.openjdk.code-tools-dev 320 56) net.java.openjdk.jsr277-eg-observer 308 57) net.java.openjdk.announce 241 58) net.java.openjdk.jep-changes 212 59) net.java.openjdk.hg-tools-dev 200 60) net.java.openjdk.penrose-dev 161 61) net.java.openjdk.challenge-discuss 160 62) net.java.openjdk.haiku-port-dev 128 63) net.java.openjdk.nb-projects-dev 123 64) net.java.openjdk.sigtest-dev 111 65) net.java.openjdk.jtharness-dev 98 66) net.java.openjdk.mips-port 78 67) net.java.openjdk.compiler-grammar-dev 73 68) net.java.openjdk.cvmi-dev 71 69) net.java.openjdk.guide-discuss 70 70) net.java.openjdk.jdk7-gk 69 71) net.java.openjdk.sandbox-changes 67 72) net.java.openjdk.audio-engine-dev 64 73) net.java.openjdk.java-se-8-spec-observers 63 74) net.java.openjdk.xrender-dev 63 75) net.java.openjdk.modules-discuss 27 76) net.java.openjdk.conformance-discuss 25 77) net.java.openjdk.font-scaler-dev 21 78) net.java.openjdk.penrose-discuss 12 79) net.java.openjdk.fbtoolkit-dev 2 80) net.java.openjdk.java-se-8-spec-experts 1 -- Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 | Mobile: +491737185961 ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From sean.coffey at oracle.com Wed Feb 28 18:53:39 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 18:53:39 +0000 Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Request for review and approval : 8193892: Impact of noncloneable MessageDigest implementation Message-ID: <68128679-b1b1-7fa6-9147-bbdc5a85b4a7@oracle.com> Looking to port the below test to JDK 8u. Almost identical to JDK 11 fix except I had to the use the old Provider constructor call in MyProvider code. Brad - would you mind confirming for review ? bug ID : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193892 webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8193892.jdk8u/webrev/ regards, Sean.