RFR 8158589: Possible integer overflow issues for DRBG

[Wang Weijun]

> On Jun 17, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Xuelei Fan <xuelei.fan at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> What did you mean "can a long field be a safe volatile?"

A long value cannot be updated atomically, and I am afraid that another thread might only see half bits updated and the other half not.

--Max

> 
> Xuelei
> 
> On 6/17/2016 10:00 AM, Wang Weijun wrote:
>> Ping again.
>> 
>>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Wang Weijun <weijun.wang at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi All
>>> 
>>> Please take a review at
>>> 
>>>  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8158589/webrev.00/
>>> 
>>> For the reseedCounter case, the default reseedInterval is Integer.MAX_VALUE and there is no integer bigger than it, therefore a new check reseedCounter < 0 is added. I had thought about making it long but can a long field be a safe volatile? I am not sure.
>>> 
>>> I added a label noreg-cleanup, or maybe noreg-hard is better?
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Max
>>> 
>> 
>