8173941 Re: SA does not work if executable is DSO

[David Holmes]

On 13/02/2017 1:54 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>> I'm a bit unclear on the problem being fixed - do I take it that
> Oracle JDK binaries are not built as DSO's and so do not experience this
> problem? Is there a reasonable way to test this (is it covered by any
> existing tests) ?
>
> You cannot check this issue with Oracle JDK because it is not DSO (PIE).
> This fix is only confirmed with DSO (PIE) binaries.
> So I did not make testcase for this issue.
>
> You have to check with DSO build as below:
>
> ```
> $ bash configure --with-native-debug-symbols=internal --enable-debug --disable-warnings-as-errors --disable-hotspot-gtest --with-extra-cflags=-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 --with-extra-cxxflags=-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 --with-extra-ldflags=-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld
> $ make images
> ```

Ok. Thanks.

David

>
> Thanks,
>
> Yasumasa
>
>
> 2017-02-13 9:06 GMT+09:00 David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>>:
>
>     Hi Volker,
>
>     On 10/02/2017 11:21 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>
>         On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com
>         <mailto:aph at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>             On 10/02/17 03:13, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>
>                 We can calculate start address of executable (java
>                 command) through entry
>                 point.
>                 I updated webrev:
>
>
>                 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8173941/webrev.01/
>                 <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eysuenaga/JDK-8173941/webrev.01/>
>
>                 This patch can ignore page size.
>
>
>             Excellent.  I think this is safe for JDK 9, but there may be
>             some
>             argument about whether we'll be able to get it in now.  I'm
>             happy to
>             approve it, but I guess we should appeal to hotspot-dev and
>             see what
>             people say.
>
>
>         I haven't looked at this change in full detail until now so this is
>         not a review. But the change looks reasonable and non-intrusive so I
>         strongly support its integration into jdk9.
>
>
>     I don't know this code or the issue being addressed, but I have run
>     this through your JPRT testing just to make sure there are no surprises.
>
>     I'm a bit unclear on the problem being fixed - do I take it that
>     Oracle JDK binaries are not built as DSO's and so do not experience
>     this problem? Is there a reasonable way to test this (is it covered
>     by any existing tests) ?
>
>     Thanks,
>     David
>     -----
>
>
>         It also doesn't touch the libjvm.so which means it can't
>         introduce any
>         harm. Second, it's good to see that somebody cares for the SA tools.
>         It would be nice if somebody from the SA team could have a look at
>         this and sponsor it.
>
>         @Andrew: as this bug is assigned to you, I'd suggest to change it's
>         status to open, the priority to P3 and target it for 9 (i.e. Fix
>         Version = 9).
>
>         Regards,
>         Volker
>
>
>             Andrew.
>
>