Request for review: JDK-8011260: fatal error: LineNumberTable attribute has wrong length in class file

[David Holmes]

On 11/04/2013 12:27 AM, harold seigel wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Thanks for looking at this.  To clarify, by "anonymous classes" I mean
> only classes loaded by the anonymous class loader, not anonymous inner
> classes.

Of course :)

> Please see in-lined responses.
>
> Thanks, Harold
>
> On 4/9/2013 8:03 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Harold,
>>
>> On 9/04/2013 11:55 PM, harold seigel wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please review the following bug fix:
>>>
>>> Summary:   The assertion was prevented by changing the code to verify
>>> classes loaded by the anonymous class loader, unless -noverify was
>>
>> So if I understand this right:
>>
>> - previously: loader == NULL -> BytecodeVerificationLocal
>> - now: loader == NULL && anonymous-loader ->
>> BytecodeVerificationRemote
>>
>> in other words we were skipping verification for anonymous classes.
> Yes, unless full verification (-verify) was explicitly specified or
> their host classes had their own non-null class loaders.

I'm still a little confused - sorry. Normally we don't verify 
boot-loader classes (unless requested). So I would have expected that 
anonymous classes associated with the boot-loader would also not get 
verified. But if I understand the fix correctly we are now verifying all 
anonymous classes regardless of which loader they are associated - is 
that right?

Thanks,
David

>>
>> I guess I don't fully understand the implications here. Given we
>> normally skip verification for classes loaded by the boot-loader, does
>> this mean we now verify anonymous classes "linked" to the boot-loader?
>> Are all anonymous classes considered to be non-boot-loader classes?
>>
> Yes, we would now verify anonymous classes "linked" to the boot-loader.
>
> The answer to 'should anonymous calls considered to be non-boot-loader
> classes" might be yes and no, depending on the context.  And this change
> proposes that the answer be 'no' when it comes to whether or not to skip
> verification.
>
>> Makes me wonder if there are other places where we check a loader for
>> NULL but also need to check it is not related to anonymous classes ?
>>
> That's a good point.  Should I create a new bug to look into this?
>>> specified.  Also, the relevant assertion messages were improved to
>>> include additional information, including class name.
>>
>> Thanks for that. I hadn't realized the classfile_parse_error routines
>> created and threw exceptions.
>>
>> David
>> -----
>>
>>> Open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hseigel/bug_8011260/
>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ehseigel/bug_8011260/>
>>>
>>> Bug link at http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8011260
>>>
>>> The change was tested by hand to ensure that the assertion no longer
>>> occurs when the test is run.  Additional testing was done using JCK Lang
>>> and VM, JTREG tests, ute vm.quick.testlist and vm.mlvm.testlist tests,
>>> and JPRT tests.
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>> Harold
>