High memory usage / leaks was: Best mailing list for JVM embedding
sean.mullan at oracle.com
Wed Jan 23 12:59:56 UTC 2019
On 1/22/19 8:50 PM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> I don’t think the launcher is doing this, it is the class loader, that’s nothing new. You can turn on verbose security debug to see it in all versions.
Yes, and it only verifies the signature(s) on the JAR. It doesn't
validate the certificate chain.
> Von: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net> im Auftrag von Robert Marcano <robert at marcanoonline.com>
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, Januar 23, 2019 2:18 AM
> An: Alan Bateman
> Cc: OpenJDK Dev list; core-libs-dev Libs
> Betreff: Re: High memory usage / leaks was: Best mailing list for JVM embedding
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 5:53 AM Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com wrote:
>> On 22/01/2019 4:48 am, Robert Marcano wrote:
>>>> So the question now is, why signed jars could affect the memory usage
>>>> of an application (we aren't doing JAR verification on our custom
>>>> launcher, yet), just by being on the java.class.path? IIRC the
>>>> initial application classpath JARs were never verified previously (by
>>>> the java launcher alone, without JNLP around).
>>>> Note: Tested with JARs signed with a self signed certificate and with
>>>> one signed with a private CA. At most, signing the JARs could slow
>>>> down the start up if it is now expected to these being verified by
>>>> the java launcher (is it true?) but not higher memory usage and no
>>>> reductions after a GC cycle but constants heap size increases.
>> Signed JARs can be expensive to verify, esp. on first usage as the
>> verification is likely to result in early loading of a lot of security
>> classes and infrastructure. If you can narrow down the apparently memory
>> leak to a small test case with analysis to suggest it's a JDK bug then
>> it would be good to get a bug submitted.
> Greeting. Sure, I will work on a distributable reproduction of the problem
> today but it is new to me that the java launcher do JARs verification now.
> If it is doing it I doesn't make sense to me, because a self signed or
> unrecognized CA doesn't trigger a validation error.
More information about the core-libs-dev