RFR: jsr166 jdk10 integration wave 2
martinrb at google.com
Tue Aug 8 21:46:52 UTC 2017
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Peter Levart <peter.levart at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> Just a purely theoretical question...
> On 08/08/2017 02:06 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> Need to fix
>> 1. JDK-8185830 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8185830>
>> ConcurrentSkipListSet.clone() fails with UnsupportedOperationException
>> (It would be nice if we could submit a jdk9 backport now instead of
> Regarding ConcurrentSkipListSet.clone()... The 'm' field is final
> presumably to allow "safe" publication of ConcurrentSkipListSet objects to
> other threads via data races.
> clone() O.T.O.H. uses Field.setAccessible(true) on a final field, followed
> with Field.set(), which amounts to Unsafe.putObjectVolatile(). Is this
> equivalent to volatile write? Is it possible for a normal write of a
> reference to a cloned ConcurrentSkipListSet (i.e. publication via data
> race) to bubble up before the volatile write of 'm' field inside the clone
> and consequently allow an observer of a reference to the clone to modify
> the backing map of the original ConcurrentSkipListSet?
Yeah, I don't think we have any really good answer for this. I've lobbied
for "safe publication of non-final fields as if final" for a long time.
Even making the field volatile is not enough in theory (but is in practice)
to make the uninitialized field unobservable.
In theory a fence in the constructor is not enough because you need a fence
before every read as well. Maybe if you replace every write with a release
write and every read with an acquire read you're OK.
But you also want to keep the "final" for software engineering purposes,
since it's "mostly" final.
More information about the core-libs-dev