Request for review: 6310967: SA: jstack -m produce failures in output

[Poonam Bajaj]

Thanks Staffan.

We do have regression tests covering jstack -m testing.

regards,
Poonam

On 6/14/2012 2:02 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
> Poonam,
>
> The fix looks good.
>
> It's not clear to me if there is a good regression test for this 
> already - if not, I'd really like to see one along with the fix.
>
> Thanks,
> /Staffan
>
> On 14 jun 2012, at 06:10, Poonam Bajaj wrote:
>
>> Could I get one more review for this fix, please.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Poonam
>>
>> On 6/13/2012 7:57 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>> On 13/06/2012 12:25 PM, Poonam Bajaj wrote:
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> On 6/13/2012 7:35 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>> Hi Poonam,
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that rather than passing the ThreadProxy through to
>>>>> f.sender the frame, which has to be a frame of some thread, should
>>>>> already know what that thread is and so be able to access it 
>>>>> directly.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words: shouldn't each CFrame maintain a reference to the
>>>>> thread it corresponds to?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it would have made more sense to have a reference of 
>>>> ThreadProxy in
>>>> the Frame classes. But that requires restructuring of lot more 
>>>> code. All
>>>> the Debugger classes (e.g.
>>>> agent/src/share/classes/sun/jvm/hotspot/debugger/linux/LinuxCDebugger.java) 
>>>>
>>>> also need to be touched that have the topFrameForThread() where we
>>>> create the first frame for the thread.
>>>
>>> Oh I see. I was hoping it would actually lead to fewer code changes. 
>>> It seems risky to pass in a thread reference when there is only ever 
>>> one valid thread reference that can be passed - but no way to verify 
>>> that you actually pass the correct one.
>>>
>>>> This fix was mainly for 6uxx and it didn't seem reasonable to me to
>>>> restructure and touch too many classes for this simple fix.
>>>
>>> Ok.
>>>
>>> David
>>> -----
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Poonam
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/06/2012 11:05 PM, Poonam Bajaj wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review this fix for bug 6310967
>>>>>> <http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6310967>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6310967 
>>>>>> <http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6310967>:
>>>>>> SA: jstack -m produce failures in output
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~poonam/6310967/webrev.00/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Problem: jstack -m fails with UnalignedAddressException.The 
>>>>>> problem is
>>>>>> that while finding the caller frame of a frame in sender() 
>>>>>> method, we
>>>>>> don't check the validity of the frame pointer (rbp / ebp).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These changes add a simple check that the frame pointer(rbp) 
>>>>>> should be a
>>>>>> valid pointer on the stack by making sure that it is not less 
>>>>>> than the
>>>>>> stack
>>>>>> pointer(rsp).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Poonam
>>>>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20120614/1d36d02c/attachment-0001.html