RFR(s): (new approach) 8223777: In posix_spawn mode, failing to exec() jspawnhelper does not result in an error
thomas.stuefe at gmail.com
Wed May 22 14:44:38 UTC 2019
Any technical input is welcome, Reviewer or not. If a non-Reviewer sees
valid reasons for or against a patch, that is good to know.
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 4:41 PM David Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com> wrote:
> I'm in favor of what the change is meant to accomplish. I haven't had
> time to analyze the change in detail, and I may not get time to do so.
> But I'm not a reviewer in any case, so maybe that doesn't matter too
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:16 AM Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>
> > Ping...
> > Guys, I need some feedback on this. If we do not fix this issue, we may
> want to roll back the use of posix_spawn() as a default and return to vfork
> for JDK13.
> > The fix has been tested in our nightlies for two nights in a row and did
> not show any errors.
> > Cheers, Thomas
> > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 4:15 PM Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>
> >> Hi all,
> >> (old mail thread:
> >> May I please have your reviews and opinions for the following bug fix:
> >> issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223777
> >> cr:
> >> ---
> >> The fix implements Florians proposal: the jspawnhelper will signal its
> aliveness to the parent process the moment it gains control. If the parent
> process does not get the signal, it assumes exec'ing the jspawnhelper never
> >> I only do this for posix_spawn mode, out of cautiousness.
> >> (Note that I kept the fix as minimal as possible. I found a minor bug
> and some improvement possibilities and opened follow up issues to track
> them: JDK-8224180 and JDK-8224181).
> >> Thanks, Thomas
> - DML
More information about the core-libs-dev