Access Checking for MethodHandles.Lookup broken?

Sebastian Sickelmann sebastian.sickelmann at
Tue Nov 26 09:44:16 PST 2013


A few days ago I thought I had found a bug in
MethodHandles.Lookup.findGetter/findSetter[0] , but i was wrong
it seemed to be fixed in the latest JDK7 and JDK8 versions. I search the
Bugdatabase for a ticket relating my issue
and didn't found one. So i looked at the regressiontests for
java/lang/invoke in the jdk repository. I found some
test but it doesn't seem to produce the error i had expected on my old
jdk7-version. So i decided to add some
additional regressiontests. See patch[1] for more information of it.
Everything is fine. It chrashes multiple times with my old jdk7 and it
runs almost with 1.7.0_45 and 1.8.0-ea-b109.
But unfortunatly it runs only almost. The last testcase in
testFindPrivate() chrashes on jdk7 and jdk8.

checkIllegalAccessException(new CTROE(){ public void run() throws ReflectiveOperationException{
    PRIV_SUBCLASS.findVirtual(SubExample.class, "pri_v0",MethodType.methodType(void.class));

The code tries to access the private method Example.pri_v0 from an
lookup instance of a subclass of Example.
I expect that there should be an IllegalAccessException, but
unfortunatly it works.

Sorry for cross-posting. But i think it is more related to core-libs-dev.

I would love to work on a fix of this. But it will take some days for me to take a closer look to the implementation.

-- Sebastian


Am 26.11.2013 03:03, schrieb John Rose:
> On Nov 24, 2013, at 2:08 AM, Sebastian Sickelmann
> <sebastian.sickelmann at <mailto:sebastian.sickelmann at>> wrote:
>> I am sorry. Due to a configuration failure in my IDE had run with
>> 1.7.0_16
>> Checked this again with 1.7.0_45 and 1.8.0-ea-b109 and everything is
>> fine.
>> Sorry for the mailing-list noise.
> If a MethodHandles.Lookup call allows more access to a method than its
> corresponding bytecode behavior, that is definitely a bug.
> Recent updates to the javadoc for Lookup (in JDK 8) emphasize this
> correspondence principle strongly.  If it breaks, we want to know
> about it.
> Thanks for the report and the double-check.
> — John

More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev mailing list