[ding] Re: jmx-dev [pong] Re: [ping] Re: RFR 8146015: JMXInterfaceBindingTest is failing intermittently for IPv6 addresses

[Jaroslav Bachorik]

On 12.1.2016 12:55, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
> On 1/12/16 03:49, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>> On 12.1.2016 11:47, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>>> On 1/7/16 08:40, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This looks OK to me.
>>>> I'm not sure I understand the full impact of the changes
>>>> in getAddressesForLocalHost() though - so hopefully someone
>>>> else will jump in to review that part...
>>>
>>> Hi Jaroslav,
>>>
>>> I do not understand the full impact of the getAddressesForLocalHost()
>>> change either
>>> so that, please, do not count me as a reviewer.
>>
>> Looks like
>>
>>>
>>> However, I have a question on the fragment:
>>>
>>> + private static boolean isLocalhost(InetAddress i) {
>>> + if (!i.isLoopbackAddress()) {
>>> + return i.getHostName().toLowerCase().equals("localhost");
>>> + }
>>> + return false;
>>>       }
>>>
>>>
>>> Should true be returned instead of false if the i.isLoopbackAddress()
>>> returns true?
>>> Do we normally treat the loopbackAddress case as a localhost variant?
>>
>> Ok, maybe the method name is missing a bit - the idea is to get all
>> 'true' localhosts - a localhost defined on a real non-loopback adapter
>> (as it doesn't make sense to bind JMX remote connector to a loopback
>> address).
>
> Got it.
> Thank you for the explanation.
>
>
>>
>> I just couldn't come up with more describing name not being
>> excessively long :( I'm open to any suggestions.
>
> The name looks Ok to me.
> I'd suggest to add a short comment with your explanation above.

Thanks. I've added the explanation and also disambiguated the method 
name a bit.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8146015/webrev.01

It looks like no one else is going to jump in and verify the 
getAddressesForLocalHost() change (basically, excluding the loopback 
localhost addresses as they are not suitable for binding the remote JMX 
connector to) :/ Maybe Severing could comment, as the orignal author?

I would like to integrate this change ASAP since the test is failing 
100% in nightly runs.

-JB-

>
>
> Thanks,
> Serguei
>
>
>>
>> -JB-
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Serguei
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> best regards,
>>>>
>>>> -- daniel
>>>>
>>>> On 07/01/16 16:02, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>>> On 5.1.2016 15:30, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>>>> On 4.1.2016 10:05, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>>>>> Gentle reminder ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23.12.2015 11:26, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>>>>>> Please, review the following test change
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8146015
>>>>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8146015/webrev.00
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The test fails for IPv6 addresses since the RMI expects an IPv6
>>>>>>>> address
>>>>>>>> to be properly wrapped in '[]'. In addition to that the logic for
>>>>>>>> selecting IP addresses to bind is flawed - it does not check for IP
>>>>>>>> addresses of multiple adapters but for multiple IP addresses
>>>>>>>> assigned to
>>>>>>>> 'localhost'. In combination with IPv4 & IPv6 this will cause the
>>>>>>>> test to
>>>>>>>> attempt binding to IPv4 and IPv6 address of the same adapter
>>>>>>>> simultaneously and the test will fail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fix adds the requested wrapping for IPv6 addresses and adjusts
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> IP selection logic to iterate over distinct adapters first and
>>>>>>>> prevent
>>>>>>>> IPv4 and IPv6 address of the same adapter being treated as two
>>>>>>>> addresses
>>>>>>>> (for the purposes of the test).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -JB-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>