RFR: 8214545: sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap tests hang in revokeall.exe on Windows

[Alex Menkov]

LGTM

--alex

On 05/20/2019 18:02, Daniil Titov wrote:
> Please review a new version of the fix that includes the changes David suggested.
> 
>   > The count-- is obvious as it is the loop counter, but it is far from
>   >  clear to me that i++ is correct. I don't fully understand the logic
> 
> We need to increment i on line 354:
> 
>   353         if (((ACCESS_ALLOWED_ACE *)ace)->Header.AceType != ACCESS_ALLOWED_ACE_TYPE) {
>   354             i++;
>   355             count--;
>   356             continue;
>   357         }
> 
> since the code iterates over all ACE entries for a given file and deletes ones that grant non-owner access to the file.  i is the index of the current ACE entry
> in the ACL structure. The current ACE entry is retrieved at the beginning of the loop:
> 
> 349         if (!GetAce(acl, i, &ace)) {
> 
> 
> and the index is always incremented at the end of the loop unless the current entry is deleted.
> 
> 382         if (!deleted) {
>   383             str = getSIDString(sid);
>   384             if (str != NULL) {
>   385                 printf("ALLOW %s (access mask=%x)\n", str, access->Mask);
>   386                 free(str);
>   387             }
>   388
>   389             /* onto the next ACE */
>   390             i++;
>   391         }
>   392         count--;
> 
> 
> I also created a new issue to replace revokeall.exe with Java code as Alan suggested : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8224255
> 
> 
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8214545/webrev.02
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8214545
> 
> Thanks!
> --Daniil
> 
> 
> On 5/19/19, 5:43 PM, "David Holmes" <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>      Hi Daniil,
>      
>      cc: Boris and Erik J.
>      
>      On 20/05/2019 7:12 am, Daniil Titov wrote:
>      > Please review the change that fixes the failure of sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap JMX tests on Windows platform.  While running, these tests invoke revokeall.exe utility and this utility hangs.
>      >
>      > The problem here is that invokeall.exe goes into an endless loop  while iterating over Access Control Entries (ACE) for a given file if it encounters at least one ACE with the type different from ACCESS_ALLOWED_ACE_TYPE.
>      >
>      > The change fixes this problem.  It also removes revokeall.exe binary from the repository and changes the makefile  to get it built instead.
>      >
>      > Tier1, tier2, tier3, jdk_svc, and sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap  tests succeeded  in Mach5.
>      >
>      > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8214545
>      > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8214545
>      
>      I knew this seemed very familiar ... Boris had a fix for this a few
>      weeks ago under JDK-8220581. Similar but not identical to yours - see
>      below. Though getting rid of the exe from the repo is a good idea
>      (thanks Erik!).
>      
>      A few comments
>      
>      test/jdk/sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap/GeneratePropertyPassword.sh
>      
>      Pre-existing:
>      
>      !         REVOKEALL="$TESTNATIVEPATH/revokeall.exe"
>                 if [ ! -f "$REVOKEALL" ] ; then
>      
>      I would expect a -x test not -f.
>      
>      ---
>      
>      test/jdk/sun/management/windows/README
>      
>      The first copyright year should be 2004.
>      
>         25 This directory contains the source and the binary version
>      
>      Delete "and the binary version".
>      
>      ---
>      
>      test/jdk/sun/management/windows/exerevokeall.c
>      
>      Pre-existing:
>      
>        31  * file - suitable for NT/2000/XP only.
>      
>      Please delete everything after "file".
>      
>      
>        355             i++;
>        356             count--;
>      
>      The count-- is obvious as it is the loop counter, but it is far from
>      clear to me that i++ is correct. I don't fully understand the logic but
>      i is only incremented under very specific conditions. If you rewrote the
>      code to avoid the use of the continue then i would not be modified
>      except where it currently is.
>      
>      Thanks,
>      David
>      -----
>      
>      > Thanks!
>      > --Daniil
>      >
>      >
>      
> 
>