<AWT Dev> <Swing Dev> RFR(S): 8156020: 8145547 breaks AIX and and uses RTLD_NOLOAD incorrectly

Phil Race philip.race at oracle.com
Fri May 6 22:56:37 UTC 2016


I've confirmed that what was pushed was v5 and it should really have 
been v6.
I can't say unequivocally that it would have built on AIX but
1) It does not use RTLD_NOLOAD anywhere
2) all calls to dlopen include RTLD_LAZY.

Here is the delta - the patch that makes v5 into v6 and although
it is not quite the same as yours it bears a striking resemblance

JPRT did build your patch (including on our embedded builds), and
I am doing the same - in progress - for the v5->v6 delta but I have a 

Option 1) Apply the delta of v5 -> v6 to client to get us where we should be
and you "workaround it" in AIX until it makes its way to dev

Option 2) Apply one of these patches to dev and sync it back to client
and clean up the mess later
  2a) apply v5->v6
  2b) apply Volker's patch and fix up the mess of the difference later.

We are taking something of a risk in applying either to dev so I will
need to do some kind of sanity checking

Opinions ?


On 05/05/2016 09:32 PM, Philip Race wrote:
> Hi Volker,
> 1) adding awt-dev. Semyon did the review on swing but really it should 
> always
> (and mainly!) have been awt.
> 2) Yes, this ought to be pushed to 9-client, specifically not 9-dev.
> Assuming it goes to 9-dev we may need to deal with conflicts.
> Also if it causes any kind of problem with 9-dev I would not want to pile
> fix on fix, so it would probably just get anti-deltaed. Just a warning.
> 3) It strictly needs a JPRT run before pushing so someone will need to 
> do that.
> 4) This change definitely needs two reviewers.
> And we were discussing RTLD_NOLOAD is not Posix as that came up why it 
> was not
> a solution in a cross-platform solution for determining whether libs were
> already loaded but it was reported to not be able to detect some cases.
> So I thought we had determined it was not a general solution.
> Leaving aside why it is in there after that (something I will need to 
> check),
> the lack of the other flag may explain why it was apparently "not 
> working".
> So one interesting thing is it appears to me that I thought we pushed
> the .v6 webrev - the one I thought we (or I) approved since it was the 
> latest
> obviously
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/2016-April/005684.html
> but this looks like the v5 webrev was pushed :
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/2016-April/005678.html
> All of this "detection" code was the main issue at that juncture.
> So I would like some time to disentangle that before anything is changed.
> -phil
> On 5/4/16, 11:32 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> Hi,
>> can somebody please review this small change which fixes the AIX build
>> after change 8145547, but also fixes an incorrect usage pattern of
>> RTLD_NOLOAD in 8145547:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/8156020/
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8156020
>> Here are the details from the bug report:
>> Change 8145547 uses the RTLD_NOLOAD flag when calling dlopen to probe
>> the availability of the GTK libraries.
>> But unfortunately RTLD_NOLOAD is not Posix and for example not
>> available on AIX and BSD.
>> I also found out, that the implementation of 8145547 contains a bug.
>> It uses RTLD_NOLOAD in an incorrect way. The man page for dlopen
>> clearly states that one of the two flags RTLD_LAZY or RTLD_NOW has to
>> be included in the flags. But the current implementation uses
>> RTLD_NOLOAD as single flag. Therefor the call to dlopen() currently
>> always returns NULL, no difference if the corresponding library has
>> been loaded already or not.
>> The bug report also contains a small C program which can be used to
>> reproduce the problem.
>> The fix is to only use RTLD_NOLOAD if it is defined. The change
>> removes the 'flags' argument from the various check() functions and
>> replaces it with a boolean 'load' argument. It indicates if the check
>> functions should just look for a previously loaded version of the GTK
>> libraries (i.e. if 'load' == false) or if it should additionally try
>> to load the libraries if that hasn't been done before (i.e. if 'load'
>> == true).
>> I hope I haven't changed the previous program semantics with my
>> change. At least I couldn't see any difference :)
>> I've built and smoke tested on Linux/Solaris and AIX with various
>> combinations for jdk.gtk.version,
>> -Dswing.defaultlaf=com.sun.java.swing.plaf.gtk.GTKLookAndFeel and
>> FileDialog implementations.
>> I'd like to push this directly to jdk9-dev to fix the AIX build as
>> fast as possible. Would that be OK?
>> Thank you and best regards,
>> Volker

More information about the awt-dev mailing list