RFR (S) 8211926: Catastrophic size_t underflow in BitMap::*_large methods
shade at redhat.com
Sat Nov 10 13:10:16 UTC 2018
On 11/10/2018 01:58 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> + assert(beg <= end, "underflow");
> I would feel slightly safer with a runtime check for product as well.
I think current patch never enters the bad path on any combination of incoming arguments, so we can
go with just the debug sanity check. And even without the assert, you would notice the breakage in
product builds as well, when it stomps over most of VM memory, reaches the end of committed memory,
and SEGVs :) Asserts only make it evident where it had gone downhill.
> The tests favor the left side (lower space) of the bitmap, since l
> never grows beyond FUZZ_WINDOW. I wonder whether testing the right
> side (small ranges near the bitmap end) would be useful. Maybe with a
> gliding window, or just repeat the tests anchored at the right instead
> of the left side.
From gray-boxing perspective, it seems to me that what matters is the position of left/right
boundaries with regards to word boundaries. This keeps testing time at bay as well. I would be in
favor of adding the proper stress tests for internal code that would spend tens of minutes going
through every possible combination, but not for this bug.
More information about the hotspot-dev