[nestmates] Name of a hidden class and stack trace
mandy.chung at oracle.com
Thu Aug 29 18:44:47 UTC 2019
Yes, I forgot to mention that is another reason to keep '/' rather than
On 8/29/19 11:42 AM, Brian Goetz wrote:
> This trick has worked well for us with anon classes, and there’s already plenty of code out there that does `name.contains(‘/‘)` to defend against it, so I see no reason to break from this convention.
>> On Aug 29, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com> wrote:
>> I'm writing a JEP proposal of hidden/nestmate/weak classes prototyped in the nestmates branch (JDK-8171335). Attached describes about hidden classes (thanks to Alex Buckley for the help) and description about nestmates/weak will come next.
>> A hidden class cannot be named by other class. Ideally a hidden class should be nameless. For troubleshooting and stack trace, a hidden class needs a name. So the proposal has been:
>> Class::getName returns a name for a hidden class and the name is unique in the runtime package namespace. That is, there is no two Class objects with the same name in the same runtime package.
>> Below shows the stack trace where a hidden class throws an exception.
>> $ java -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions -XX:+ShowHiddenFrames DefineClass foo/Foo.class
>> java.lang.Error: error
>> at foo.Foo_/0x0000000800b79258.run(Foo.java:9)
>> at DefineClass.main(DefineClass.java:18)
>> The current impl includes `/` in the hidden class's name to disjoint from the ordinary class names
>> (same trick as VM anonymous class).
>> Another class calls Class::forName with the hidden class's name which would fail since that's not a valid binary name. If someone attempts to spin a class referencing this hidden class's name with replace('.', '/'), it may attempt to load a class named 'foo/Foo_/0x0000000800b79258' and may succeed if such a class file exists and can be located by class loader. This is no difference than today as one can spin a class file to any class names.
>> Class::getName may return an invalid binary name if it's a hidden class. It will impact existing code that expects the returned name is a valid binary name or use the name to perform class lookup. I think the compatibility concern should not be high.
More information about the valhalla-dev