Code Review Request for 7107613, 7107616, 7185471
Weijun Wang
weijun.wang at oracle.com
Thu Jul 26 23:35:24 UTC 2012
On 07/27/2012 07:26 AM, Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng wrote:
> Max,
>
> So, do you want me to check the exemptCache again, i.e. what line 122-
> 125 do, inside the synchronized block before calling
> getAppPermissions(...)?
Yes, that should work.
If you do believe this is a very rare case and you don't mind
getAppPermissions() called twice, the synchonized block seems
unnecessary. Both getAppPermissions and putIfAbsent should be
thread-safe methods.
Thanks
Max
>
> Thanks,
> Valerie
>
> On 07/25/12 18:29, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/7107616
>>
>> You have
>>
>> 122 CryptoPermissions appPerms =
>> exemptCache.get(callerCodeBase);
>> 123 // Found result in cache
>> 124 if (appPerms != null) {
>> 125 if (appPerms == CACHE_NULL_MARK) appPerms = null;
>> 126 } else {
>> 127 synchronized (this.getClass()) {
>> 128 appPerms = getAppPermissions(callerCodeBase);
>> 129 exemptCache.putIfAbsent(callerCodeBase,
>> 130 (appPerms == null? CACHE_NULL_MARK:appPerms));
>> 131 }
>> 132 }
>>
>> This is not as optimized as before, that there is a chance
>> getAppPermissions could be called twice, and this seems to make the
>> synchronized block not worth syncing.
>>
>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/7185471
>>
>> I haven't looked at this yet. Seems a lot of math there.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Max
>>
>>>
>>> The changes are for JDK 8. May be backported to 7u later if necessary,
>>> Thanks,
>>> Valerie
>
More information about the security-dev
mailing list