From muthusamy.chinnathambi at oracle.com Tue Jan 2 12:51:39 2018 From: muthusamy.chinnathambi at oracle.com (Muthusamy Chinnathambi) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 04:51:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [8u] RFA for JDK-8169931: '8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist' Message-ID: <10b574c7-6a49-4e9d-b45f-18942b39c4ba@default> Hi, May I get the approval of backport of JDK-8169931: '8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist' to jdk8u. JDK9 bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8169931 Jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2016-November/025291.html Jdk8 review threads: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-December/029611.html http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2018-January/029677.html Webrev link: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchinnathamb/JDK-8169931/webrev.02/ Regards, Muthusamy C From sean.coffey at oracle.com Tue Jan 2 13:21:50 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 13:21:50 +0000 Subject: [8u] RFA for JDK-8169931: '8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist' In-Reply-To: <10b574c7-6a49-4e9d-b45f-18942b39c4ba@default> References: <10b574c7-6a49-4e9d-b45f-18942b39c4ba@default> Message-ID: <32b842dd-b0b7-84dd-4aa9-72b45096858c@oracle.com> Approved for JDK 8u. Please ensure that you've taken into account the JDK 9 backout which appeared to happen for the first attempt in fixing this issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170355 regards, Sean. On 02/01/2018 12:51, Muthusamy Chinnathambi wrote: > Hi, > > May I get the approval of backport of JDK-8169931: '8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist' to jdk8u. > > > JDK9 bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8169931 > Jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2016-November/025291.html > Jdk8 review threads: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-December/029611.html > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2018-January/029677.html > Webrev link: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchinnathamb/JDK-8169931/webrev.02/ > > Regards, > Muthusamy C From david.buck at oracle.com Tue Jan 2 13:33:09 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 22:33:09 +0900 Subject: [8u] RFA for JDK-8169931: '8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist' In-Reply-To: <10b574c7-6a49-4e9d-b45f-18942b39c4ba@default> References: <10b574c7-6a49-4e9d-b45f-18942b39c4ba@default> Message-ID: <53f7761d-f4bf-7553-a391-b1198f7e29ed@oracle.com> approved for push to 8u-dev Cheers, -Buck On 2018/01/02 21:51, Muthusamy Chinnathambi wrote: > Hi, > > May I get the approval of backport of JDK-8169931: '8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist' to jdk8u. > > > JDK9 bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8169931 > Jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2016-November/025291.html > Jdk8 review threads: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-December/029611.html > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2018-January/029677.html > Webrev link: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchinnathamb/JDK-8169931/webrev.02/ > > Regards, > Muthusamy C > From david.buck at oracle.com Tue Jan 2 14:01:51 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 23:01:51 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for enhancement backport approval for CR 8054889 - Compiler team's implementation task Message-ID: <249a8041-af5c-9404-c8b4-a835332214d4@oracle.com> Hi! Please consider the following enhancement for approval: bug report: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8054889 This is an important serviceability improvement. These new diagnostic commands provide us with a supported and safe way to better understand what the JIT compiler is doing. I have run all the standard JPRT hotspot tests, run the testcases included in the changeset, and manually confirmed that the new diagnostic commands work as expected. The change itself is extremely small and safe. I believe any risk posed by including this in JDK 8 is negligible. Cheers, -Buck From sean.coffey at oracle.com Tue Jan 2 16:01:05 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 16:01:05 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for enhancement backport approval for CR 8054889 - Compiler team's implementation task In-Reply-To: <249a8041-af5c-9404-c8b4-a835332214d4@oracle.com> References: <249a8041-af5c-9404-c8b4-a835332214d4@oracle.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the notice Buck. I'll get back to you on this one shortly. regards, Sean. On 02/01/2018 14:01, David Buck wrote: > Hi! > > Please consider the following enhancement for approval: > > bug report: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8054889 > > This is an important serviceability improvement. These new diagnostic > commands provide us with a supported and safe way to better understand > what the JIT compiler is doing. I have run all the standard JPRT > hotspot tests, run the testcases included in the changeset, and > manually confirmed that the new diagnostic commands work as expected. > The change itself is extremely small and safe. I believe any risk > posed by including this in JDK 8 is negligible. > > Cheers, > -Buck From david.holmes at oracle.com Tue Jan 2 22:35:37 2018 From: david.holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 08:35:37 +1000 Subject: [8u] RFA for JDK-8169931: '8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist' In-Reply-To: <32b842dd-b0b7-84dd-4aa9-72b45096858c@oracle.com> References: <10b574c7-6a49-4e9d-b45f-18942b39c4ba@default> <32b842dd-b0b7-84dd-4aa9-72b45096858c@oracle.com> Message-ID: On 2/01/2018 11:21 PM, Se?n Coffey wrote: > Approved for JDK 8u. Please ensure that you've taken into account the > JDK 9 backout which appeared to happen for the first attempt in fixing > this issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170355 Well spotted Sean! I think technically the backport should be for: 8170358: [REDO] 8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist David > regards, > Sean. > > > On 02/01/2018 12:51, Muthusamy Chinnathambi wrote: >> Hi, >> >> May I get the approval of backport of JDK-8169931: '8k class metaspace >> chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist'? to jdk8u. >> >> >> JDK9 bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8169931 >> Jdk9 review thread: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2016-November/025291.html >> >> Jdk8 review threads: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-December/029611.html >> >> >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2018-January/029677.html >> >> Webrev link: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchinnathamb/JDK-8169931/webrev.02/ >> >> Regards, >> Muthusamy C > From david.holmes at oracle.com Tue Jan 2 22:42:41 2018 From: david.holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 08:42:41 +1000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for enhancement backport approval for CR 8054889 - Compiler team's implementation task In-Reply-To: <249a8041-af5c-9404-c8b4-a835332214d4@oracle.com> References: <249a8041-af5c-9404-c8b4-a835332214d4@oracle.com> Message-ID: This seems to be a request for a partial backport of "JEP 228: Add More Diagnostic Commands" I don't think a partial backport is a good idea. David H. On 3/01/2018 12:01 AM, David Buck wrote: > Hi! > > Please consider the following enhancement for approval: > > bug report: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8054889 > > This is an important serviceability improvement. These new diagnostic > commands provide us with a supported and safe way to better understand > what the JIT compiler is doing. I have run all the standard JPRT hotspot > tests, run the testcases included in the changeset, and manually > confirmed that the new diagnostic commands work as expected. The change > itself is extremely small and safe. I believe any risk posed by > including this in JDK 8 is negligible. > > Cheers, > -Buck From ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com Wed Jan 3 01:16:55 2018 From: ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com (Ivan Gerasimov) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 17:16:55 -0800 Subject: [8u-dev] Request to Review and for Approval to Backport 8192987 : keytool should remember real storetype if it is not provided Message-ID: <44aec628-91f5-0a3a-5db0-72f17f971a5f@oracle.com> Hello! I'd like to backport this fix to JDK 8u-dev. The patch did NOT apply cleanly, thus a Review request. Patched JDK builds fine on all platforms, the tests pass well. BUGURL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8192987 WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8192987/00/webrev/ JDK 10 Change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/e3b6cb90d7ce JDK 10 Review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2017-December/016613.html Thanks in advance! -- With kind regards, Ivan Gerasimov From weijun.wang at oracle.com Wed Jan 3 02:44:47 2018 From: weijun.wang at oracle.com (Weijun Wang) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 10:44:47 +0800 Subject: [8u-dev] Request to Review and for Approval to Backport 8192987 : keytool should remember real storetype if it is not provided In-Reply-To: <44aec628-91f5-0a3a-5db0-72f17f971a5f@oracle.com> References: <44aec628-91f5-0a3a-5db0-72f17f971a5f@oracle.com> Message-ID: <00ECEE2F-0184-4FF7-9873-E0DE39E29DB0@oracle.com> The code change looks fine to me. Thanks Max > On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > > Hello! > > I'd like to backport this fix to JDK 8u-dev. > > The patch did NOT apply cleanly, thus a Review request. > > Patched JDK builds fine on all platforms, the tests pass well. > > BUGURL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8192987 > WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8192987/00/webrev/ > JDK 10 Change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/e3b6cb90d7ce > JDK 10 Review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2017-December/016613.html > > Thanks in advance! > > -- > With kind regards, > Ivan Gerasimov > From muthusamy.chinnathambi at oracle.com Wed Jan 3 08:08:57 2018 From: muthusamy.chinnathambi at oracle.com (Muthusamy Chinnathambi) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 00:08:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [8u] RFA for JDK-8169931: '8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist' In-Reply-To: References: <10b574c7-6a49-4e9d-b45f-18942b39c4ba@default> <32b842dd-b0b7-84dd-4aa9-72b45096858c@oracle.com> Message-ID: <10373449-3b46-4424-991d-b8c3fc6cfba3@default> Hi Sean, > Approved for JDK 8u. Please ensure that you've taken into account the > JDK 9 backout which appeared to happen for the first attempt in fixing > this issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170355 Yes, the changes are in-line with the latest JDK-9. Hi David, > I think technically the backport should be for: > 8170358: [REDO] 8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk Freelist May I please know the process and if/what more needs to be done. Technically the changes are identical. Regards, Muthusamy C -----Original Message----- From: David Holmes Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 4:06 AM To: Se?n Coffey ; Muthusamy Chinnathambi ; jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: [8u] RFA for JDK-8169931: '8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist' On 2/01/2018 11:21 PM, Se?n Coffey wrote: > Approved for JDK 8u. Please ensure that you've taken into account the > JDK 9 backout which appeared to happen for the first attempt in fixing > this issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170355 Well spotted Sean! I think technically the backport should be for: 8170358: [REDO] 8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist David > regards, > Sean. > > > On 02/01/2018 12:51, Muthusamy Chinnathambi wrote: >> Hi, >> >> May I get the approval of backport of JDK-8169931: '8k class metaspace >> chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist'? to jdk8u. >> >> >> JDK9 bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8169931 >> Jdk9 review thread: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2016-November/025291.html >> >> Jdk8 review threads: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-December/029611.html >> >> >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2018-January/029677.html >> >> Webrev link: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchinnathamb/JDK-8169931/webrev.02/ >> >> Regards, >> Muthusamy C > From david.holmes at oracle.com Wed Jan 3 08:22:14 2018 From: david.holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 18:22:14 +1000 Subject: [8u] RFA for JDK-8169931: '8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist' In-Reply-To: <10373449-3b46-4424-991d-b8c3fc6cfba3@default> References: <10b574c7-6a49-4e9d-b45f-18942b39c4ba@default> <32b842dd-b0b7-84dd-4aa9-72b45096858c@oracle.com> <10373449-3b46-4424-991d-b8c3fc6cfba3@default> Message-ID: <3252a512-8dbf-f990-449a-7993c51805d5@oracle.com> On 3/01/2018 6:08 PM, Muthusamy Chinnathambi wrote: > Hi Sean, > >> Approved for JDK 8u. Please ensure that you've taken into account the >> JDK 9 backout which appeared to happen for the first attempt in fixing >> this issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170355 > > Yes, the changes are in-line with the latest JDK-9. > > Hi David, > >> I think technically the backport should be for: > >> 8170358: [REDO] 8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk Freelist > May I please know the process and if/what more needs to be done. Technically the changes are identical. If the changes are identical then I guess it doesn't really matter. Thanks, David > Regards, > Muthusamy C > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Holmes > Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 4:06 AM > To: Se?n Coffey ; Muthusamy Chinnathambi ; jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: [8u] RFA for JDK-8169931: '8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist' > > On 2/01/2018 11:21 PM, Se?n Coffey wrote: >> Approved for JDK 8u. Please ensure that you've taken into account the >> JDK 9 backout which appeared to happen for the first attempt in fixing >> this issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170355 > > Well spotted Sean! > > I think technically the backport should be for: > > 8170358: [REDO] 8k class metaspace chunks misallocated from 4k chunk > freelist > > David > >> regards, >> Sean. >> >> >> On 02/01/2018 12:51, Muthusamy Chinnathambi wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> May I get the approval of backport of JDK-8169931: '8k class metaspace >>> chunks misallocated from 4k chunk freelist'? to jdk8u. >>> >>> >>> JDK9 bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8169931 >>> Jdk9 review thread: >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2016-November/025291.html >>> >>> Jdk8 review threads: >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-December/029611.html >>> >>> >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2018-January/029677.html >>> >>> Webrev link: >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchinnathamb/JDK-8169931/webrev.02/ >>> >>> Regards, >>> Muthusamy C >> From sean.coffey at oracle.com Wed Jan 3 08:33:06 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 08:33:06 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request to Review and for Approval to Backport 8192987 : keytool should remember real storetype if it is not provided In-Reply-To: <00ECEE2F-0184-4FF7-9873-E0DE39E29DB0@oracle.com> References: <44aec628-91f5-0a3a-5db0-72f17f971a5f@oracle.com> <00ECEE2F-0184-4FF7-9873-E0DE39E29DB0@oracle.com> Message-ID: Looks fine. Approved for jdk8u-dev. regards, Sean. On 03/01/2018 02:44, Weijun Wang wrote: > The code change looks fine to me. > > Thanks > Max > >> On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: >> >> Hello! >> >> I'd like to backport this fix to JDK 8u-dev. >> >> The patch did NOT apply cleanly, thus a Review request. >> >> Patched JDK builds fine on all platforms, the tests pass well. >> >> BUGURL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8192987 >> WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8192987/00/webrev/ >> JDK 10 Change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/e3b6cb90d7ce >> JDK 10 Review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2017-December/016613.html >> >> Thanks in advance! >> >> -- >> With kind regards, >> Ivan Gerasimov >> From sean.coffey at oracle.com Wed Jan 3 16:44:28 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:44:28 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for enhancement backport approval for CR 8054889 - Compiler team's implementation task In-Reply-To: References: <249a8041-af5c-9404-c8b4-a835332214d4@oracle.com> Message-ID: <17d6d1bc-14d9-9039-ec28-b8ce965885b6@oracle.com> Approved for porting. regards, Sean. On 02/01/18 16:01, Se?n Coffey wrote: > Thanks for the notice Buck. I'll get back to you on this one shortly. > > regards, > Sean. > > > On 02/01/2018 14:01, David Buck wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Please consider the following enhancement for approval: >> >> bug report: >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8054889 >> >> This is an important serviceability improvement. These new diagnostic >> commands provide us with a supported and safe way to better >> understand what the JIT compiler is doing. I have run all the >> standard JPRT hotspot tests, run the testcases included in the >> changeset, and manually confirmed that the new diagnostic commands >> work as expected. The change itself is extremely small and safe. I >> believe any risk posed by including this in JDK 8 is negligible. >> >> Cheers, >> -Buck > From kevin.walls at oracle.com Thu Jan 4 14:24:26 2018 From: kevin.walls at oracle.com (Kevin Walls) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:24:26 +0000 Subject: RFR(8u): 8038636, 8055008, 8156137: SIGSEGV in ReceiverTypeData::clean_weak_klass_links ...and 8057570. Message-ID: <85cd900c-89e9-e672-ab1a-d907bc96757a@oracle.com> Hi, I'd like to get approval for the 8u backport of these changes: we primarily want JDK-8156137 back into 8u, but it has some dependencies. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8156137 8u webrev: webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kevinw/8055008.8156137/webrev.00/ 8u backport approval on runtime-dev: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2017-November/025354.html ..that's a long email that shows the chain of changes in order, with their jdk9 changesets and comments where they differ for 8u. I will follow up on 8040237 separately: it's a short code change with further protection against tripping up on redefined classes, which was observed in a test.? The change in the webrev has now had some good real-world testing with no problems uncovered. Many thanks, Kevin From kevin.walls at oracle.com Sat Jan 6 10:23:19 2018 From: kevin.walls at oracle.com (Kevin Walls) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 10:23:19 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] RFA for 8038636, 8055008, 8156137: SIGSEGV in ReceiverTypeData::clean_weak_klass_links ...and 8057570. In-Reply-To: <85cd900c-89e9-e672-ab1a-d907bc96757a@oracle.com> References: <85cd900c-89e9-e672-ab1a-d907bc96757a@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi - just a resend with RFA as the subject line: this is an 8u approval request, not a review request. On 04/01/2018 14:24, Kevin Walls wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to get approval for the 8u backport of these changes: we > primarily want JDK-8156137 back into 8u, but it has some dependencies. > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8156137 > > 8u webrev: webrev: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kevinw/8055008.8156137/webrev.00/ > > 8u backport approval on runtime-dev: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2017-November/025354.html > > ..that's a long email that shows the chain of changes in order, with > their jdk9 changesets and comments where they differ for 8u. > > > I will follow up on 8040237 separately: it's a short code change with > further protection against tripping up on redefined classes, which was > observed in a test.? The change in the webrev has now had some good > real-world testing with no problems uncovered. > > Many thanks, > Kevin From sean.coffey at oracle.com Sun Jan 7 12:20:29 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 12:20:29 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] RFA for 8038636, 8055008, 8156137: SIGSEGV in ReceiverTypeData::clean_weak_klass_links ...and 8057570. In-Reply-To: References: <85cd900c-89e9-e672-ab1a-d907bc96757a@oracle.com> Message-ID: Approved for jdk8u-dev. regards, Sean. On 06/01/2018 10:23, Kevin Walls wrote: > Hi - just a resend with RFA as the subject line: this is an 8u > approval request, not a review request. > > > On 04/01/2018 14:24, Kevin Walls wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to get approval for the 8u backport of these changes: we >> primarily want JDK-8156137 back into 8u, but it has some dependencies. >> >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8156137 >> >> 8u webrev: webrev: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kevinw/8055008.8156137/webrev.00/ >> >> 8u backport approval on runtime-dev: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2017-November/025354.html >> >> ..that's a long email that shows the chain of changes in order, with >> their jdk9 changesets and comments where they differ for 8u. >> >> >> I will follow up on 8040237 separately: it's a short code change with >> further protection against tripping up on redefined classes, which >> was observed in a test.? The change in the webrev has now had some >> good real-world testing with no problems uncovered. >> >> Many thanks, >> Kevin > From kevin.walls at oracle.com Sun Jan 7 17:04:06 2018 From: kevin.walls at oracle.com (Kevin Walls) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:04:06 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] RFA for 8038636, 8055008, 8156137: SIGSEGV in ReceiverTypeData::clean_weak_klass_links ...and 8057570. In-Reply-To: References: <85cd900c-89e9-e672-ab1a-d907bc96757a@oracle.com> Message-ID: <1464a5ec-82d1-6194-328a-ded80d94ce27@oracle.com> Thanks Sean! On 07/01/2018 12:20, Se?n Coffey wrote: > Approved for jdk8u-dev. > > regards, > Sean. > > On 06/01/2018 10:23, Kevin Walls wrote: >> Hi - just a resend with RFA as the subject line: this is an 8u >> approval request, not a review request. >> >> >> On 04/01/2018 14:24, Kevin Walls wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'd like to get approval for the 8u backport of these changes: we >>> primarily want JDK-8156137 back into 8u, but it has some dependencies. >>> >>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8156137 >>> >>> 8u webrev: webrev: >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kevinw/8055008.8156137/webrev.00/ >>> >>> 8u backport approval on runtime-dev: >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2017-November/025354.html >>> >>> ..that's a long email that shows the chain of changes in order, with >>> their jdk9 changesets and comments where they differ for 8u. >>> >>> >>> I will follow up on 8040237 separately: it's a short code change >>> with further protection against tripping up on redefined classes, >>> which was observed in a test.? The change in the webrev has now had >>> some good real-world testing with no problems uncovered. >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> Kevin >> > From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Thu Jan 11 12:30:25 2018 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:30:25 +0000 Subject: Request for review / approval: 8193758 - Update copyright headers of files in src tree that are missing Classpath exception Message-ID: <20180111123025.GA4567@vimes> Hi folks, Looking to push this trivial change to update some copyright notices: bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193758 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8193758/webrev.01/ Thanks, -Rob From sean.coffey at oracle.com Thu Jan 11 12:35:39 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:35:39 +0000 Subject: Request for review / approval: 8193758 - Update copyright headers of files in src tree that are missing Classpath exception In-Reply-To: <20180111123025.GA4567@vimes> References: <20180111123025.GA4567@vimes> Message-ID: <754f15a0-e15f-d9fc-b6d5-fbe2a29aa85d@oracle.com> Looks good. Approved for jdk8u-dev. regards, Sean. On 11/01/2018 12:30, Rob McKenna wrote: > Hi folks, > > Looking to push this trivial change to update some copyright notices: > > bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193758 > webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8193758/webrev.01/ > > Thanks, > > -Rob > From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Thu Jan 11 12:38:20 2018 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:38:20 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for review / approval: 8193758 - Update copyright headers of files in src tree that are missing Classpath exception In-Reply-To: <20180111123025.GA4567@vimes> References: <20180111123025.GA4567@vimes> Message-ID: <20180111123820.GB4567@vimes> Updated with correct subject! -Rob On 11/01/18 12:30, Rob McKenna wrote: > Hi folks, > > Looking to push this trivial change to update some copyright notices: > > bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193758 > webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8193758/webrev.01/ > > Thanks, > > -Rob > From david.buck at oracle.com Tue Jan 16 06:28:18 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:28:18 +0900 Subject: [8u] RFA 8187045: [linux] Not all libraries in the VM are linked with -z,noexecstack Message-ID: Hi! Please approve this backport to 8u-dev bug report: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8187045 JDK 10 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/master/rev/8b5ed0358b3a JDK 10 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2017-September/019723.html webrevs of JDK 8 backport: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dbuck/8187045/ JDK 8 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2018-January/020612.html JPRT hotspot testset run and passed. Manual run of testset included in changeset passed. Cheers, -Buck From sean.coffey at oracle.com Tue Jan 16 09:02:45 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:02:45 +0000 Subject: [8u] RFA 8187045: [linux] Not all libraries in the VM are linked with -z,noexecstack In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0d4cac34-97df-b7b8-d821-cdf89e4aa4a3@oracle.com> Approved. regards, Sean. On 16/01/2018 06:28, David Buck wrote: > Hi! > > Please approve this backport to 8u-dev > > bug report: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8187045 > > JDK 10 changeset: > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/master/rev/8b5ed0358b3a > > JDK 10 review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2017-September/019723.html > > > webrevs of JDK 8 backport: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dbuck/8187045/ > > JDK 8 review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2018-January/020612.html > > JPRT hotspot testset run and passed. Manual run of testset included in > changeset passed. > > Cheers, > -Buck From abhi.saha at oracle.com Tue Jan 16 22:38:48 2018 From: abhi.saha at oracle.com (Abhijit Saha) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:38:48 -0800 Subject: [8u] Request for approval for bulk changes from 8u162 fixes into 8u Message-ID: <6b067411-9d46-fe86-7809-6f3ff6c37739@oracle.com> 8u162 has been released earlier today [1]. Requesting approval to sync up the 8u162 changes into the jdk8u forest. Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asaha/openJDK.8u162-8u182.sync/webrev Thanks Abhijit [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/index.html -- Java Platform Group Oracle Corporation. (408)276-7564 From david.buck at oracle.com Tue Jan 16 23:42:40 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:42:40 +0900 Subject: [8u] Request for approval for bulk changes from 8u162 fixes into 8u In-Reply-To: <6b067411-9d46-fe86-7809-6f3ff6c37739@oracle.com> References: <6b067411-9d46-fe86-7809-6f3ff6c37739@oracle.com> Message-ID: approved Cheers, -Buck On 2018/01/17 7:38, Abhijit Saha wrote: > 8u162 has been released earlier today [1]. Requesting approval to sync > up the 8u162 changes into the jdk8u forest. > > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asaha/openJDK.8u162-8u182.sync/webrev > > > > Thanks > Abhijit > > > [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/index.html > > From david.buck at oracle.com Fri Jan 19 08:15:39 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:15:39 +0900 Subject: [8u] RFA 8074373: NMT is not enabled if NMT option is specified after class path specifiers Message-ID: <7ebb067e-a04b-69ea-954d-910b67629488@oracle.com> Hi! Please approve this small backport to 8u-dev: bug report: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8074373 JDK 9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/3cc28f4f1137 JDK 9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-March/032075.html JDK 9 fix applies as-is to JDK 8u source (after path unshuffling). JPRT hotspot testset run and passed. Verified fix with test included in changeset. Cheers, -Buck From sean.coffey at oracle.com Fri Jan 19 10:55:07 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:55:07 +0000 Subject: [8u] RFA 8074373: NMT is not enabled if NMT option is specified after class path specifiers In-Reply-To: <7ebb067e-a04b-69ea-954d-910b67629488@oracle.com> References: <7ebb067e-a04b-69ea-954d-910b67629488@oracle.com> Message-ID: <35b2b37f-6471-2f9b-b436-131175471a38@oracle.com> Approved. Regards, Sean. On 19/01/18 08:15, David Buck wrote: > Hi! > > Please approve this small backport to 8u-dev: > > bug report: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8074373 > > JDK 9 changeset: > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/3cc28f4f1137 > > JDK 9 review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-March/032075.html > > > JDK 9 fix applies as-is to JDK 8u source (after path unshuffling). > JPRT hotspot testset run and passed. Verified fix with test included > in changeset. > > Cheers, > -Buck From david.buck at oracle.com Sun Jan 21 11:26:24 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:26:24 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for enhancement backport approval for CR 8189170 - Add option to disable stack overflow checking in primordial thread for use with JNI_CreateJavaJVM Message-ID: <14d8bb50-79be-1ffe-76d4-087a5735f1c2@oracle.com> Hi! Please consider the following enhancement for approval: bug report: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189170 This is an important fix that helps improve our interoperability with the language runtime for R and possibly other languages as well. There are likely other JNI use cases that also benefit from this as well. One could even argue that the current behavior is a bug as it is not clear at all why the JVM would be justified in assuming that it completely "owns" the thread that calls JNI_CreateJavaVM. Either way, this is an important and safe fix. All standard JPRT tests run and passed (hotspot testset). Effectiveness of change manually confirmed with dummy JNI invocation test case. The change itself is relatively small and very straightforward. It has zero impact on JVM processes launched by our own launcher, and will only impact JNI programs that use the Invocation API if both the UnlockExperimentalVMOptions and DisablePrimordialThreadGuardPages options are passed to the JVM. I believe any risk posed by including this in JDK 8 is negligible. Cheers, -Buck From dipak.kumar at oracle.com Mon Jan 22 09:49:05 2018 From: dipak.kumar at oracle.com (Dipak Kumar) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 01:49:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [8u-dev] RFA for backport of JDK-8187803 : JDK part of JavaFX-Swing dialogs appearing behind main stage Message-ID: <47412d86-d95f-433f-a337-5e1a4290d834@default> Hi, May I get the approval of backport of "JDK-8187803: JDK part of JavaFX-Swing dialogs appearing behind main stage" to jdk8u-dev. JBS - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8187803 JDK 10 review thread - http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2017-September/013073.html JDK10 changeset - http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/client/rev/f2238a5326e7 Changes were not applied cleanly and jdk8u-dev review has been done in a separate thread. Jdk8u webrev - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dkumar/8185634/webrev.01/jdk/ Jdk8u review thread - http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2018-January/013486.html I have tested out all the relevant Swing and AWT JTREG tests apart from JavaFx system tests. Also, ensured that there are no failures related to this on JPRT (Stockholm) Queues. Thanks, Dipak From aph at redhat.com Mon Jan 22 16:30:52 2018 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:30:52 +0000 Subject: JDK8u: RFR: 8194739: Zero port of 8174962: Better interface invocations Message-ID: <7c1ee9d4-5791-538c-9585-b6c1b7cf5592@redhat.com> Backport, applies cleanly. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/8194739-jdk8/ -- Andrew Haley Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671 From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Mon Jan 22 16:35:02 2018 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:35:02 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] RFA for backport of JDK-8187803 : JDK part of JavaFX-Swing dialogs appearing behind main stage In-Reply-To: <47412d86-d95f-433f-a337-5e1a4290d834@default> References: <47412d86-d95f-433f-a337-5e1a4290d834@default> Message-ID: <20180122163502.GA3787@vimes> Approved -Rob On 22/01/18 01:49, Dipak Kumar wrote: > Hi, > > May I get the approval of backport of "JDK-8187803: JDK part of JavaFX-Swing dialogs appearing behind main stage" to jdk8u-dev. > > JBS - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8187803 > JDK 10 review thread - http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2017-September/013073.html > JDK10 changeset - http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/client/rev/f2238a5326e7 > > Changes were not applied cleanly and jdk8u-dev review has been done in a separate thread. > > Jdk8u webrev - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dkumar/8185634/webrev.01/jdk/ > Jdk8u review thread - http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2018-January/013486.html > > I have tested out all the relevant Swing and AWT JTREG tests apart from JavaFx system tests. > Also, ensured that there are no failures related to this on JPRT (Stockholm) Queues. > > Thanks, > Dipak > From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Mon Jan 22 16:58:58 2018 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:58:58 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for enhancement backport approval for CR 8189170 - Add option to disable stack overflow checking in primordial thread for use with JNI_CreateJavaJVM In-Reply-To: <14d8bb50-79be-1ffe-76d4-087a5735f1c2@oracle.com> References: <14d8bb50-79be-1ffe-76d4-087a5735f1c2@oracle.com> Message-ID: <20180122165858.GC3787@vimes> Thanks Buck, I'll get back to you on this once a decision has been reached. -Rob On 21/01/18 20:26, David Buck wrote: > Hi! > > Please consider the following enhancement for approval: > > bug report: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189170 > > This is an important fix that helps improve our interoperability with the > language runtime for R and possibly other languages as well. There are > likely other JNI use cases that also benefit from this as well. One could > even argue that the current behavior is a bug as it is not clear at all why > the JVM would be justified in assuming that it completely "owns" the thread > that calls JNI_CreateJavaVM. Either way, this is an important and safe fix. > > All standard JPRT tests run and passed (hotspot testset). Effectiveness of > change manually confirmed with dummy JNI invocation test case. The change > itself is relatively small and very straightforward. It has zero impact on > JVM processes launched by our own launcher, and will only impact JNI > programs that use the Invocation API if both the UnlockExperimentalVMOptions > and DisablePrimordialThreadGuardPages options are passed to the JVM. I > believe any risk posed by including this in JDK 8 is negligible. > > Cheers, > -Buck From shafi.s.ahmad at oracle.com Wed Jan 24 09:04:12 2018 From: shafi.s.ahmad at oracle.com (Shafi Ahmad) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:04:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [8u-dev] Request for enhancement backport approval for JDK-8026331: hs_err improvement: Print if we have seen any OutOfMemoryErrors or StackOverflowErrors Message-ID: <56c913a4-8a50-4b1c-af4c-aaf63f46c576@default> Hi! Please consider the following enhancement for approval: bug report: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8026331 This is an important fix that helps in analyzing the user issues. All standard JPRT tests run and passed (hotspot testset). The change itself is relatively safe as this change emits additional data into the hs_err file without changing any behavior of JVM. It has zero almost impact on JVM. I believe there is negligible risk in including this in JDK 8. Regards, Shafi From sean.coffey at oracle.com Wed Jan 24 15:48:23 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:48:23 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for enhancement backport approval for CR 8189170 - Add option to disable stack overflow checking in primordial thread for use with JNI_CreateJavaJVM In-Reply-To: <20180122165858.GC3787@vimes> References: <14d8bb50-79be-1ffe-76d4-087a5735f1c2@oracle.com> <20180122165858.GC3787@vimes> Message-ID: <0c2995ba-50f4-3754-3f19-dacea9a9b296@oracle.com> This is approved for backporting to jdk8u-dev. Regards, Sean. On 22/01/18 16:58, Rob McKenna wrote: > Thanks Buck, > > I'll get back to you on this once a decision has been reached. > > -Rob > > On 21/01/18 20:26, David Buck wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Please consider the following enhancement for approval: >> >> bug report: >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189170 >> >> This is an important fix that helps improve our interoperability with the >> language runtime for R and possibly other languages as well. There are >> likely other JNI use cases that also benefit from this as well. One could >> even argue that the current behavior is a bug as it is not clear at all why >> the JVM would be justified in assuming that it completely "owns" the thread >> that calls JNI_CreateJavaVM. Either way, this is an important and safe fix. >> >> All standard JPRT tests run and passed (hotspot testset). Effectiveness of >> change manually confirmed with dummy JNI invocation test case. The change >> itself is relatively small and very straightforward. It has zero impact on >> JVM processes launched by our own launcher, and will only impact JNI >> programs that use the Invocation API if both the UnlockExperimentalVMOptions >> and DisablePrimordialThreadGuardPages options are passed to the JVM. I >> believe any risk posed by including this in JDK 8 is negligible. >> >> Cheers, >> -Buck From sean.coffey at oracle.com Wed Jan 24 15:52:33 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:52:33 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for enhancement backport approval for JDK-8026331: hs_err improvement: Print if we have seen any OutOfMemoryErrors or StackOverflowErrors In-Reply-To: <56c913a4-8a50-4b1c-af4c-aaf63f46c576@default> References: <56c913a4-8a50-4b1c-af4c-aaf63f46c576@default> Message-ID: <39ad3145-0ade-b20b-b78a-5aad084e2729@oracle.com> Thanks Shafi. I'll get back to you on this one shortly. Regards, Sean. On 24/01/18 09:04, Shafi Ahmad wrote: > Hi! > > Please consider the following enhancement for approval: > > bug report: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8026331 > > This is an important fix that helps in analyzing the user issues. > > All standard JPRT tests run and passed (hotspot testset). > > The change itself is relatively safe as this change emits additional data into the hs_err file without changing any behavior of JVM. > It has zero almost impact on JVM. I believe there is negligible risk in including this in JDK 8. > > Regards, > Shafi From david.buck at oracle.com Thu Jan 25 04:40:54 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:40:54 +0900 Subject: [8u] RFA 8189170: Add option to disable stack overflow checking in primordial thread for use with JNI_CreateJavaJVM Message-ID: <65ec4b37-7119-0fad-0ed8-c37d0ade884d@oracle.com> Hi! Please approve the backport of this change to 8u-dev. bug report: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189170 original JDK changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/9fd89aabb6cd code review of original change: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2017-November/025207.html 8u backport code review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2018-January/025981.html JDK 8 ER approval thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-January/007185.html (See 8u code review request thread for webrev link and comments about testing.) Cheers, -Buck From sean.coffey at oracle.com Thu Jan 25 08:25:37 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:25:37 +0000 Subject: [8u] RFA 8189170: Add option to disable stack overflow checking in primordial thread for use with JNI_CreateJavaJVM In-Reply-To: <65ec4b37-7119-0fad-0ed8-c37d0ade884d@oracle.com> References: <65ec4b37-7119-0fad-0ed8-c37d0ade884d@oracle.com> Message-ID: Has an 8u CCC/CSR request been logged for this new option ? Will a release note accompany the enhancement ? regards, Sean. On 25/01/2018 04:40, David Buck wrote: > Hi! > > Please approve the backport of this change to 8u-dev. > > bug report: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189170 > > original JDK changeset: > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/9fd89aabb6cd > > code review of original change: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2017-November/025207.html > > > 8u backport code review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2018-January/025981.html > > > JDK 8 ER approval thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-January/007185.html > > (See 8u code review request thread for webrev link and comments about > testing.) > > Cheers, > -Buck From sean.coffey at oracle.com Thu Jan 25 08:28:41 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:28:41 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for enhancement backport approval for JDK-8026331: hs_err improvement: Print if we have seen any OutOfMemoryErrors or StackOverflowErrors In-Reply-To: <39ad3145-0ade-b20b-b78a-5aad084e2729@oracle.com> References: <56c913a4-8a50-4b1c-af4c-aaf63f46c576@default> <39ad3145-0ade-b20b-b78a-5aad084e2729@oracle.com> Message-ID: This is approved for backporting to jdk8u-dev. regards, Sean. On 24/01/2018 15:52, Se?n Coffey wrote: > Thanks Shafi. I'll get back to you on this one shortly. > > Regards, > Sean. > > On 24/01/18 09:04, Shafi Ahmad wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Please consider the following enhancement for approval: >> >> bug report: >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8026331 >> >> This is an important fix that helps in analyzing the user issues. >> >> All standard JPRT tests run and passed (hotspot testset). >> >> The change itself is relatively safe as this change emits additional >> data into the hs_err file without changing any behavior of JVM. >> It has zero almost impact on JVM. I believe there is negligible risk >> in including this in JDK 8. >> >> Regards, >> Shafi > From shafi.s.ahmad at oracle.com Thu Jan 25 08:31:14 2018 From: shafi.s.ahmad at oracle.com (Shafi Ahmad) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:31:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [8u-dev] Request for enhancement backport approval for JDK-8026331: hs_err improvement: Print if we have seen any OutOfMemoryErrors or StackOverflowErrors In-Reply-To: References: <56c913a4-8a50-4b1c-af4c-aaf63f46c576@default> <39ad3145-0ade-b20b-b78a-5aad084e2729@oracle.com> Message-ID: <8f31b2c9-8de3-4948-a7b0-27b6acb3ea32@default> Thank you Sean. Regards, Shafi > -----Original Message----- > From: Se?n Coffey > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 1:59 PM > To: Shafi Ahmad ; jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: [8u-dev] Request for enhancement backport approval for JDK- > 8026331: hs_err improvement: Print if we have seen any > OutOfMemoryErrors or StackOverflowErrors > > This is approved for backporting to jdk8u-dev. > > regards, > Sean. > > > On 24/01/2018 15:52, Se?n Coffey wrote: > > Thanks Shafi. I'll get back to you on this one shortly. > > > > Regards, > > Sean. > > > > On 24/01/18 09:04, Shafi Ahmad wrote: > >> Hi! > >> > >> Please consider the following enhancement for approval: > >> > >> bug report: > >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8026331 > >> > >> This is an important fix that helps in analyzing the user issues. > >> > >> All standard JPRT tests run and passed (hotspot testset). > >> > >> The change itself is relatively safe as this change emits additional > >> data into the hs_err file without changing any behavior of JVM. > >> It has zero almost impact on JVM. I believe there is negligible risk > >> in including this in JDK 8. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Shafi > > > From hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com Thu Jan 25 15:03:49 2018 From: hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com (=?utf-8?Q?Hannes_Walln=C3=B6fer?=) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:03:49 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] RFA for backport of 8186646: Nashorn: "duplicate code" assertion when binding a vararg function that just passes arguments along Message-ID: Hi, Please approve backport of 8186646: Nashorn: "duplicate code" assertion when binding a vararg function that just passes arguments along. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8186646 JDK 10 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8186646/webrev/ The patch applies cleanly to 8u-dev after path reshuffling. Thanks, Hannes From david.buck at oracle.com Thu Jan 25 15:07:11 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 00:07:11 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] RFA for backport of 8186646: Nashorn: "duplicate code" assertion when binding a vararg function that just passes arguments along In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57534454-ea1b-3368-7968-1a97a99665e3@oracle.com> approved -Buck On 2018/01/26 0:03, Hannes Walln?fer wrote: > Hi, > > Please approve backport of 8186646: Nashorn: "duplicate code" assertion when binding a vararg function that just passes arguments along. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8186646 > JDK 10 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8186646/webrev/ > > The patch applies cleanly to 8u-dev after path reshuffling. > > Thanks, > Hannes > From raduandritoiu at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 15:16:49 2018 From: raduandritoiu at gmail.com (Radu Andritoiu) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 17:16:49 +0200 Subject: Compile JRE for PPC 32 bit Message-ID: Hello, I need to compile a working (java compatible) JRE for Power PC 32 bit. I need the JRE to have the fix for RMI vulnerability ( https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2017-3241). So I thought to try compiling jdk8u162-b01 revision. I am building on a x86 Ubuntu and using a cross-compiler. Do you recommend trying to do a compiling it directly on the PPC 32 machine? What jvm-variant should I compile? I understood that the "zero" variant is the only one that can be cross-compiled to run on PPC32, but it is an interpreter only and needs this patch ( http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~openjdk/openjdk/openjdk8/view/head:/debian/patches/hotspot-powerpcspe.diff) that makes is not java compatible. What target should I compile? I managed to cross-compile only "hotspot" but this only gives me the JVM. I think in order to get the rest of the JRE I need to cross-compile "jdk" target, and this one gives me a lot of errors. Do you think I should give up on cross-compiling jdk8u162 and try compiling an older version and manually port the RMI fix? What jdk version/revision can be compiled for PPC32 with at least the "client" target, not only for "zero"? Please, can you help me. Thank you very much in advance, Radu From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Thu Jan 25 15:34:49 2018 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:34:49 +0000 Subject: Compile JRE for PPC 32 bit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180125153449.GB4563@vimes> Hi Radu, This topic is more suited to the PowerPC port alias: ppc-aix-port-dev at openjdk.java.net Bcc'ing jdk8u-dev. -Rob On 25/01/18 17:16, Radu Andritoiu wrote: > Hello, > > I need to compile a working (java compatible) JRE for Power PC 32 bit. > I need the JRE to have the fix for RMI vulnerability ( > https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2017-3241). > So I thought to try compiling jdk8u162-b01 revision. > > I am building on a x86 Ubuntu and using a cross-compiler. > Do you recommend trying to do a compiling it directly on the PPC 32 machine? > > What jvm-variant should I compile? > I understood that the "zero" variant is the only one that can be > cross-compiled to run on PPC32, but it is an interpreter only and needs > this patch ( > http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~openjdk/openjdk/openjdk8/view/head:/debian/patches/hotspot-powerpcspe.diff) > that makes is not java compatible. > > What target should I compile? > I managed to cross-compile only "hotspot" but this only gives me the JVM. I > think in order to get the rest of the JRE I need to cross-compile "jdk" > target, and this one gives me a lot of errors. > > Do you think I should give up on cross-compiling jdk8u162 and try compiling > an older version and manually port the RMI fix? > What jdk version/revision can be compiled for PPC32 with at least the > "client" target, not only for "zero"? > > Please, can you help me. > > > Thank you very much in advance, > Radu From anton.litvinov at oracle.com Fri Jan 26 16:48:16 2018 From: anton.litvinov at oracle.com (Anton Litvinov) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 16:48:16 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for CR 8177758: Regression in java.awt.FileDialog Message-ID: <94621689-73cd-b670-efd7-c2887a9c75b2@oracle.com> Hello, I would like to request for approval to push a straight backport of the fix from JDK 10 to JDK 8. The backport fix is identical to the original fix, except for the part editing the year in the copyright header of the file "src/windows/native/sun/windows/awt_FileDialog.cpp" and paths of the edited files. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177758 JDK 8 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alitvinov/8177758/jdk8/webrev.00 JDK 10 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/client/rev/f3860ee5c026 JDK 10 review thread: ??? Approval 1 - http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2017-December/013436.html ??? Approval 2 - http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2017-December/013439.html Reviewers: sveerabhadra, serb Thank you, Anton From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Fri Jan 26 17:36:36 2018 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:36:36 +0000 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for CR 8177758: Regression in java.awt.FileDialog In-Reply-To: <94621689-73cd-b670-efd7-c2887a9c75b2@oracle.com> References: <94621689-73cd-b670-efd7-c2887a9c75b2@oracle.com> Message-ID: <20180126173636.GA9495@vimes> Approved -Rob On 26/01/18 16:48, Anton Litvinov wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to request for approval to push a straight backport of the fix > from JDK 10 to JDK 8. The backport fix is identical to the original fix, > except for the part editing the year in the copyright header of the file > "src/windows/native/sun/windows/awt_FileDialog.cpp" and paths of the edited > files. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177758 > JDK 8 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alitvinov/8177758/jdk8/webrev.00 > JDK 10 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/client/rev/f3860ee5c026 > JDK 10 review thread: > ??? Approval 1 - > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2017-December/013436.html > ??? Approval 2 - > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2017-December/013439.html > Reviewers: sveerabhadra, serb > > Thank you, > Anton From david.buck at oracle.com Tue Jan 30 01:33:48 2018 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:33:48 +0900 Subject: [8u] RFA 8189170: Add option to disable stack overflow checking in primordial thread for use with JNI_CreateJavaJVM In-Reply-To: References: <65ec4b37-7119-0fad-0ed8-c37d0ade884d@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5a653b91-ef5f-37fa-7d28-0f1464da56fa@oracle.com> Hi Sean! I have received CCC approval for this new option. I have discussed the issue with David Holmes and for now there is no plan document this in any version of the JDK. Cheers, -Buck On 2018/01/25 17:25, Se?n Coffey wrote: > Has an 8u CCC/CSR request been logged for this new option ? Will a > release note accompany the enhancement ? > > regards, > Sean. > > > On 25/01/2018 04:40, David Buck wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Please approve the backport of this change to 8u-dev. >> >> bug report: >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189170 >> >> original JDK changeset: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/9fd89aabb6cd >> >> code review of original change: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2017-November/025207.html >> >> >> 8u backport code review thread: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2018-January/025981.html >> >> >> JDK 8 ER approval thread: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-January/007185.html >> >> (See 8u code review request thread for webrev link and comments about >> testing.) >> >> Cheers, >> -Buck > From sean.coffey at oracle.com Tue Jan 30 08:51:37 2018 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:51:37 +0000 Subject: [8u] RFA 8189170: Add option to disable stack overflow checking in primordial thread for use with JNI_CreateJavaJVM In-Reply-To: <5a653b91-ef5f-37fa-7d28-0f1464da56fa@oracle.com> References: <65ec4b37-7119-0fad-0ed8-c37d0ade884d@oracle.com> <5a653b91-ef5f-37fa-7d28-0f1464da56fa@oracle.com> Message-ID: Thanks Buck. This is approved for porting to jdk8u-dev. regards, Sean. On 30/01/2018 01:33, David Buck wrote: > Hi Sean! > > I have received CCC approval for this new option. I have discussed the > issue with David Holmes and for now there is no plan document this in > any version of the JDK. > > Cheers, > -Buck > > On 2018/01/25 17:25, Se?n Coffey wrote: >> Has an 8u CCC/CSR request been logged for this new option ? Will a >> release note accompany the enhancement ? >> >> regards, >> Sean. >> >> >> On 25/01/2018 04:40, David Buck wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> Please approve the backport of this change to 8u-dev. >>> >>> bug report: >>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189170 >>> >>> original JDK changeset: >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/9fd89aabb6cd >>> >>> code review of original change: >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2017-November/025207.html >>> >>> >>> 8u backport code review thread: >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2018-January/025981.html >>> >>> >>> JDK 8 ER approval thread: >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-January/007185.html >>> >>> >>> (See 8u code review request thread for webrev link and comments >>> about testing.) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -Buck >>