RFR (M): 8161224: CONSTANT_NameAndType_info permits references to illegal names and descriptors

[Rachel Protacio]

Hi Harold,

Thanks for the review! I've removed the resource mark. If no further 
comments in the next hour, will commit.

Rachel

On 9/6/2016 3:29 PM, harold seigel wrote:
> Hi Rachel,
>
> The change looks good.  Just one nit:
>
> No resource mark is needed before calling classfile_parse_error() at 
> line 4857.
>
> (No new RFR needed.)
>
> Thanks, Harold
>
>
> On 9/1/2016 5:30 PM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> Please review this fix, which addresses a few issues related to 
>> incomplete format checking with NameAndType names and signatures.
>>
>> First, the code that should have been format checking the strings in 
>> later classfile versions was in fact just checking for periods, so 
>> I've rewritten it to call verify_unqualified_name(). Second, the 
>> checks were (depending on the version) only performed when referenced 
>> through Methodref/Fieldref/InterfaceMethodref/InvokeDynamic, meaning 
>> that non-referenced NameAndType bytecodes did not get checked like 
>> they were supposed to. My change enforces the spec in both aspects. 
>> To summarize:
>>
>> The existing code had:
>> - strict checks for pre-5.0
>> - incomplete/non-spec-compliant checks for 5.0-and-later
>> - no checks for un-referenced NameAndType (A) names and (B) 
>> 6.0-and-earlier signatures.
>>
>> My change has:
>> - the same strict checks for pre-5.0
>> - complete/spec-compliant checks for 5.0-and-later
>> - all checks moved to the NameAndType section so all names and 
>> signatures will be checked regardless of whether NameAndType is 
>> referenced.
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161224
>> Open webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/8161224.00/
>>
>> Testing: The jck tests which had been failing for this bug now pass, 
>> along with all other jck vm tests. Also tested with JPRT and RBT 
>> hotspot_all and noncolo tests.
>>
>> A compatibility request has been approved for this change.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Rachel
>