RFR: JDK-8160240 - javax/rmi/PortableRemoteObject/8146975/RmiIiopReturnValueTest.java failed with error "Address already in use: bind"

Roger Riggs Roger.Riggs at Oracle.com
Fri Jul 1 18:39:06 UTC 2016

Hi Mark,

On 7/1/2016 2:25 PM, Mark Sheppard wrote:
> Hi Roger,
>   thanks for the feedback and suggestion.
> so is the suggestion one of parsing the command line of the test to 
> extract the -port argument and then fabricate the
> NS port with an increment, and then pass this into the startComponents 
> method and thus, eliminate the
> security manager check?
That would be equivalent; factoring out the ports all the way to the 
command line.
Still it would be using fixed ports, as per Sean's comments.

> I'm not too keen on using ephemeral ports for the tests.
> the port # chosen are not in the ephemeral range on any test platform 
> (or at least shouldn't be, afaik)
> they are a variation on the default ports of 1050 1049 .... 4050 4049, 
> 5050 5049.
> The issue stems from the tests executing faster than the kernel 
> releases TCP resources when
> terminating connections have closed and it is intermittent
ok , but the port number values should not be important; only that they 
are unique.

It would be much more work to have the orb and server open their own 
ephemeral port and then
be able to configure the client to use it.  But that would have the 
fewest problems with port usage.
Still, it is probably not practical.
> as I understand it, TestLibrary.Utils.freeport() may have some issues 
> also, in that it grabs a port by creating a Socket and then
> releases, and then indicates it is available for use, as a free port, 
> based on the assumption that this port wont be a candidate for
> immediate selection in the ephemeral range ... this may not always be 
> the case.
I'm not sure if this is better or worse than fixed ports; it was 
proposed as an improvement over fixed ports
but not without timing problems.

Passing the ports from the command line is likely to be good enough 
unless multiple test runs are done concurrently on the same system.

It would also be possible for startTestComponents to be able to detect 
that startOrbd failed to start on a particular port and try again with a 
different one; ditto startRmiIiopServer().  But that's also probably not 
worth applying for a single test, but more for an enhancement to the 
suite of tests.


> regards
> Mark
> On 01/07/2016 17:01, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>> Instead of spreading around the condition and the port numbers, can 
>> you pass the pair of port numbers (as int's)
>> to startOrbD and startRmiIiopServer?  That would allow the logic for 
>> changing the port numbers to be
>> put into startTestComponents.
>> And you could take advantage of the TestLibrary.Utils.freeport() to 
>> pick a free port.
>> Roger
>> On 7/1/2016 11:45 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
>>> Mark,
>>> fixed port numbers are always going to be problematic in tests. Is 
>>> there any way the port numbers can be assigned after the test starts 
>>> up ? Maybe the com.sun.jndi.cosnaming.CNCtxFactory class could be 
>>> modified/accessed via reflection so that the initUsingIiopUrl can be 
>>> re-called once you're sure of a free port on test client.
>>> That failing, maybe you can use a try/finally block in main method 
>>> to ensure that stopTestComponents() is always called. Looks like 
>>> there's potential for the test to exit early without cleaning up if 
>>> startRmiIiopServer() runs into an exception.
>>> Regards,
>>> Sean.
>>> On 01/07/16 00:38, Mark Sheppard wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>   please oblige and review the following change
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~msheppar/8160240/webrev/
>>>> to address the issue raised in
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8160240
>>>> it has been observed that, during continuous integration regression 
>>>> tests on some platforms,
>>>> there is an intermittent bind failure, when starting the orbd for 
>>>> the test. Thus, as the test is composed of
>>>> two run commands, one without security manager and one with 
>>>> security manager, it is
>>>> assumed that, the second run starts before the sockets in use in 
>>>> the first run have been fully released.
>>>> Therefore, to overcome the bind already in use port conflict, the 
>>>> test's second run with security manager
>>>> has been modified to use different ports, for cos nameservice and 
>>>> activator, to those of the first run.
>>>> regards
>>>> Mark

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list