Theoretical data race on java.util.logging.Handler.sealed

Mandy Chung mandy.chung at
Mon Dec 23 04:50:49 UTC 2013

On 12/22/2013 5:23 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
> Hi Mandy,
> On 12/19/2013 10:38 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> On 12/19/13 7:49 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
>>> Hi Mandy, Daniel,
>>> I didn't like the package-protected getters either. So here's 
>>> another variant that replaces Handler.configure() method with a 
>>> package-protected constructor which is chained from JDK subclasses:
>> Looks good.  Thanks for making the change and the new test. It'd be 
>> good to close the handlers by the test. The test is running in 
>> othervm mode and the Cleaner thread will close the handler when VM 
>> exits and the test is fine as it is.
> Well, not really. The Cleaner only closes Handlers that are attached 
> to Loggers but the test just instantiates Handlers and doesn't add 
> them to any Loggers. It's harmless as it is, othervm will exit 
> nevertheless and resources will be freed...
> I tried closing Handlers at the end of test, but that requires 
> "control" LoggingPermission and we don't want to run the test with 
> "control" permission since we want to check that instantiating 
> Handlers (SocketHandler too) doesn't require "control" permission.

Thanks and the test is fine as it is.

> So should anything else be done before pushing this to jdk9/dev ?

Fix looks good and have a regression test.  It's good to go and push to 
jdk9/dev.    No other approval needed.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list