RFR: 8212117 : Class.forName may return a reference to a loaded but not linked Class
Daniel D. Daugherty
daniel.daugherty at oracle.com
Thu Sep 5 13:33:02 UTC 2019
On 9/5/19 1:36 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> With my CSR Group member hat on ....
> On 5/09/2019 8:06 am, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> You currently have '-XX:+ClassForNameDeferLinking' as a 'product'
>> option, but
>> product options are harder to remove down the road. Would it be
>> better as a
>> diagnostic option? A diagnostic option requires
> Whether a flag is product or diagnostic (or experimental) should be a
> basic property of the flag based on its purpose. I would not want to
> see a trend of making new flags diagnostic just because it is easier
> to get rid of them later. The expectation with this fix and flag
> (which I've been heavily involved in) is that production code may be
> impacted by the change and need to use the flag to restore previous
> behaviour. So it really is a product flag that end users should be
> comfortable in using if they need
This is the key phrase:
> production code may be impacted by the change and need to
> use the flag to restore previous behaviour.
Thanks for making that clear. Maybe I missed it in what I read,
but it is now clear that this should be a product flag.
> The removal process for a product flag is phased (deprecate, obsolete,
> expire) but not particularly onerous. There is an expectation that
> this flag may be deprecated in 15 as it is intended as a transitional
>> to be specified before it can be used, e.g.:
>> java -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions
>> -XX:+ClassForNameDeferLinking Foo
>> so it is a bit harder to use, but maybe that's a Good Thing (TM).
>> On 9/4/19 5:12 PM, Brent Christian wrote:
>>> Please review my fix for JDK-8212117. The webrev is here:
>>> There is also a CSR in need of review.
>>> The spec for the 2-arg and 3-arg Class.forName() methods states they
>>> will "locate, load, and link" the class, however the linking part is
>>> not ensured to happen.
>>> Although the VM spec allows flexibility WRT when classes are linked,
>>> this is a corner where the Class.forName() spec is not being upheld.
>>> While this is not an issue for most usages, 8181144  demonstrates
>>> how this can be a problem (with the debugging interface, in this case).
>>> This fix ensures that linking happens during the course of
>>> Class.forName(). Class.forName() already @throws LinkageError, so
>>> no spec change is needed there. MethodHandles.Lookup.findClass()
>>> needs a small spec update, due to calling Class.forName with
>>> Of course Errors are not required to be caught. It is therefore
>>> possible that the new behavior could introduce previously unseen,
>>> possibly unhandled LinkageErrors. A new VM flag
>>> (-XX:+ClassForNameDeferLinking) is introduced to restore the
>>> previous behavior (to keep such code running until it can be updated).
>>> This change surfaced a couple new "A JNI error has occurred"
>>> situations (see 8181033) in the Launcher, by way of
>>> (using the 3-arg Class::forName, detailed in the bug report),
>>> (using the 2-arg Class::forName).
>>> The Launcher is updated to maintain non-confusing error messages :).
>>> The new test included with this fix ensures that 8181144 is
>>> addressed. Thanks go to Serguei Spitsyn for writing the test.
>>> Automated corelibs and hotspot tests pass cleanly.
>>> 1. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212117
>>> 2. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222071
>>> 3. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181144
>>> 5. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181033
More information about the core-libs-dev