jmx-dev [ping][ping] Re: RFR: 8004926 sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap/CustomLauncherTest.sh oftenly times out

[Jaroslav Bachorik]

On 7.10.2013 18:47, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> Jaroslav,
>
>> Can you elaborate why checking for the current user being able to read
>> the actual library file might be wrong?
>
> It's not applicable to this particular testcase (so I'd marked it as a
> nit) but a generic security rule is to always check that we deal with a
> regular file.
>
> Try to link any block device to libjvm.so and see what happens.

Ok. I see - in that case it would probably be good to check either for 
regular file and it being readable.

-JB-


>
> -Dmitry
>
>
>
> On 2013-10-07 20:39, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>> On 7.10.2013 16:31, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>>> Jarsolav,
>>>
>>> Looks good for me, comments below is just a nits - so fill free to
>>> ignore it.
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> As FS.getPath(TEST_JDK, "jre", "lib", LIBARCH) is the only value for
>>> findLibjvm parameter, It's better to create an overload function
>>> findLibjvm().
>>
>> Ok. It will make the code a further bit readable.
>>
>>>
>>> 2.
>>> it's better to check for File.isFile() - readable (e.g. device) is not
>>> always what you whant here.
>>
>> Can you elaborate why checking for the current user being able to read
>> the actual library file might be wrong?
>>
>>>
>>> 3. It's good to try
>>> ARCH/libjvm.so, ARCH/server/libjvm.so, ARCH/client/libjvm.so
>>> in order for the possible platforms with the only vm
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> -JB-
>>
>>>
>>> -Dmitry
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2013-10-07 18:14, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>> On 19.9.2013 16:33, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>>> The updated webrev:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8004926/webrev.03
>>>>>
>>>>> I've moved some of the functionality to the testlibrary.
>>>>>
>>>>> -JB -
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12.9.2013 17:31, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/12/2013 05:13 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>>>>>>> Jaroslav,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CustomLauncherTest.java:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 102: this check could be moved to switch at ll. 108
>>>>>>> otherwise test fails on "sunos" and "linux" because PLATFORM remains
>>>>>>> unset.
>>>>>> Good idea. Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 129: I would prefer don't have pattern like this one ever in shell
>>>>>>> script. Could you prepare a list of VM's to check and just loop over
>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>> It makes test better readable. Also I think nowdays we can always use
>>>>>>> server VM.
>>>>>> I tried to mirror the original shell test as closely as possible. It
>>>>>> would be nice if we could rely on the "server" vm only. Definitely
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> readable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -JB-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Dmitry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2013-09-12 18:17, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/12/2013 10:22 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 09/12/2013 10:12 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/12/2013 04:45 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jaroslav,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You need a copyright notice in the new file.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As written this test can only run on a full JDK - so please add
>>>>>>>>>>> it to
>>>>>>>>>>> the :needs_jdk group in TEST.groups. (Does jcmd really needs to
>>>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>> from the test-jdk? And use the VMOPTS passed to the test?)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a reason this test can't run on OSX? I know it would
>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>> further modification but was wondering if there is something
>>>>>>>>>>> inherent in
>>>>>>>>>>> the test that makes it inapplicable to OSX.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think the test would be a lot simpler if the jdk tests had the
>>>>>>>>>>> hotspot
>>>>>>>>>>> test library's process tools available. :(
>>>>>>>>>> We have some, is there an obvious gap?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/file/e407df8093dc/test/lib/testlibrary/jdk/testlibrary/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hm, thanks for the info. I should have used this library instead.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please, stand by for the updated webrev.
>>>>>>>> I was able to get rid off the JCMD. Using the testlibrary the target
>>>>>>>> application can recognize its own PID and print it to its stdout.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> main application then just reads the stdout to parse the PID. No
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>> for JCMD any more.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I could not find a way to remove the dependency on "test.jdk" system
>>>>>>>> property. According to the jtreg web documentation
>>>>>>>> (http://openjdk.java.net/jtreg/vmoptions.html#cmdLineOpts) a
>>>>>>>> "test.java"
>>>>>>>> system property should be available but in fact is not. But it seems
>>>>>>>> that the testlibrary uses "test.jdk" system property too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The test does not run on OSX because nobody built the launcher
>>>>>>>> binary :)
>>>>>>>> I think it is a kind of DIY so I took the liberty of adding a
>>>>>>>> linux-amd64 launcher while working on the test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While working with the test library I realized I was missing a
>>>>>>>> crucial
>>>>>>>> feature (at least for my purposes) - waiting for a certain
>>>>>>>> message to
>>>>>>>> appear in the stdout/stderr of the launched process. Very often I
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>> to wait for the target process to get to certain point before the
>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>> can be allowed to continue - and the point is indicated by a
>>>>>>>> message in
>>>>>>>> stdout/stderr. Currently all the proc tools are designed to work in
>>>>>>>> "batch" mode - the whole stdout/stderr is captured in strings and
>>>>>>>> analyzed after the target process died - and are not suitable for
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> kind of usage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8004926/webrev.01
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -JB-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Chris.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2013 1:39 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please, review the patch for an intermittently failing test.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The test is a shell test, using files for the interprocess
>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization. This leads to intermittent failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to fix this the test is rewritten in Java - the
>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality and outputs should be 100% preserved. The patch is
>>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately a bit difficult to follow since there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>> similarity
>>>>>>>>>>>> between the *.sh and *.java file so one needs to go through the
>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>> source in whole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The changes in "launcher" files are all about adding
>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions to
>>>>>>>>>>>> execute (0755) and as such the webrev shows no differences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Issue  : JDK-8004926
>>>>>>>>>>>> Webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8004926/webrev.00
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -JB-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>