RFR(s): 8074860: Structured Exception Catcher missing around CreateJavaVM on Windows

Markus Gronlund markus.gronlund at oracle.com
Tue Mar 17 08:40:10 UTC 2015

I don’t think it is worth it. But thanks for thinking about it.


I was thinking if we could maybe do some callback trickery to set up the SEH in Windows specific code only inside Threads::create_vm() – but again, probably not worth it.


I am ok with the suggestion as it stands.





From: Thomas Stüfe [mailto:thomas.stuefe at gmail.com] 
Sent: den 17 mars 2015 09:34
To: Markus Gronlund
Cc: hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net; David Holmes
Subject: Re: RFR(s): 8074860: Structured Exception Catcher missing around CreateJavaVM on Windows


Hi Markus, David,


thanks for reviewing this!


yes, I also do not like the #ifdefs _WIN32.


We could pretty it up a bit with macros:


#define GUARD_SEH_START    __try {

#define GUARD_SEH_END        } __except...


and defining those empty on non-windows platforms?


What do you think? 


Kind Regards, Thomas










On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Markus Gronlund <HYPERLINK "mailto:markus.gronlund at oracle.com" \nmarkus.gronlund at oracle.com> wrote:

Hi Thomas,

This looks good, thank you for fixing this!

I didn't know that the entire Threads::create_vm() routine is currently unguarded - interesting.

Small point: I agree with David about the annoyance of having platform specific #ifdefs in the shared code, but I can't find any other position where we could solve this better (we still need to reach through to the ExceptionFilter).

Let me know when you start to dig into the SEH (or lack of) for attaching threads :-)

Thanks again

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Stüfe [mailto:HYPERLINK "mailto:thomas.stuefe at gmail.com"thomas.stuefe at gmail.com]
Sent: den 16 mars 2015 12:32
To: David Holmes
Cc: HYPERLINK "mailto:hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net"hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: RFR(s): 8074860: Structured Exception Catcher missing around CreateJavaVM on Windows


I still need one or two reviewers and a sponsor.

Thank you!


On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:41 AM, David Holmes <HYPERLINK "mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com"david.holmes at oracle.com>

> Hi Thomas,
> Thanks for the added info. I have no further comments. Hopefully
> someone with SEH knowledge will also respond.
> David
> On 12/03/2015 7:18 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:45 AM, David Holmes
>> <HYPERLINK "mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com"david.holmes at oracle.com <mailto:HYPERLINK "mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com"david.holmes at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>     On 12/03/2015 8:03 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>>         Hi David,
>>         On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:43 PM, David Holmes
>>         <HYPERLINK "mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com"david.holmes at oracle.com <mailto:HYPERLINK "mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com"david.holmes at oracle.com>
>>         <mailto:HYPERLINK "mailto:david.holmes at oracle."david.holmes at oracle.__com
>>         <mailto:HYPERLINK "mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com"david.holmes at oracle.com>>> wrote:
>>              Hi Thomas,
>>              I'm not really familiar with Windows SEH. Won't this break
>>         custom
>>              launchers that already provide their own try/catch around
>>         Crate_JavaVM ?
>>         No. Windows SEH works stack based: any exception - e.g. a crash -
>>         between __try and __except will be handled by the handler given
>>         in the
>>         __except clause. Because they are stack based, they can be
>>         nested. If an
>>         exception is raised inside the inner __try/__except, first
>> the inner
>>         handler is used, if that one feels not responsible, the next
>>         outer one
>>         and so on.
>>         With my fix, any exception raised inside CreateJavaVM will be
>>         handler by
>>         our handler topLevelExceptionFilter; only if our handler feels not
>>         responsible (returns EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_SEARCH), the user
>>         handler will
>>         be called.
>>     My lack of knowledge about when our handler "feels responsible"
>>     still leaves me a little nervous here. :)
>> I think the patch is quite safe. I added this patch to our code base
>> in
>> 2011 and since then this is active in productive code for SAP customers.
>> The SAP jvm gets heavily used with custom launchers which do their
>> own error handling, so this is a well tested scenario.
>> I would like to get a similar signal handling coverage as on UNIX:
>> On Unix, we have global signal handling. The moment signal handling
>> is established early in os::init(), every signal from everywhere is
>> covered, even user code. We even have to take care that user handlers
>> get also in the loop via signal chaining, libjsig.so etc.
>> On Windows, it is the other way around: we have stack based signal
>> handling , so we need __try/__except on every thread, and this means
>> there are parts of jvm code which run without signal handling:
>> - the whole initialization
>> - attached threads (I think?)
>> which means that on those cases, user handler gets signals which the
>> libjvm should handle.
>> This was "fixed" partly by surrounding small code which we know
>> beforehand causes signals - how convenient - with __try/__except. For
>> example, the code which handles "-XX:ErrorHandlerTest" to trigger a
>> crash. But you want error handling to always work. I also do not know
>> if stuff like polling pages, implicit nulltests etc could be used in
>> unprotected code.
>> As a side note, there is a UNIX-like signal handling mode on Windows
>> too, "vectored exception handling", which was used in the jvm but
>> removed some time ago for reasons I do not really know.
>>         Any exception raised in the launcher itself outside of
>>         CreateJavaVM will
>>         still be handled by the user handler.
>>              (And I hate seeing the win32 ifdefs in the shared code :( ).
>>         Yes I know, I kind of expected that feedback :( - I did not find a
>>         better way of doing this. One could try to hide the __try/__except
>>         behind macros, but that would be kind of unwieldy and I don't like
>>         abstractiing something which only has meaning on one platform.
>>     Does it help if we make the caller responsible for SEH and then put
>>     the try/catch in the launcher code (hopefully in a windows specific
>>     part thereof) ?
>> No, because the caller would need access to "topLevelExceptionFilter"
>> - you would need to export that function from the libjvm and then
>> tell the caller "always call topLevelExceptionFilter() if a signal
>> happens on Windows", which is quite awkward and different than on UNIX.
>> Thomas
>>     Thanks,
>>     David
>>              Thanks,
>>              David
>>         Kind regards, Thomas
>>              On 12/03/2015 1:40 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>>                  Hi all,
>>                  please review this smallish change:
>>                  webrev:
>>         http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~____stuefe/webrevs/8074860/
>> webrev.____01/webrev/
>>         <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~__stuefe/webrevs/8074860/
>> webrev.__01/webrev/>
>>         <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~__stuefe/webrevs/8074860/
>> webrev.__01/webrev/
>>         <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8074860/webrev.
>> 01/webrev/>>
>>                  bug:
>>         https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/____browse/JDK-8074860
>>         <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/__browse/JDK-8074860>
>>                  <https://bugs.openjdk.java.__net/browse/JDK-8074860
>>         <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8074860>>
>>                  This change adds SEH guards around JNI_CreateJavaVM().
>>         Without
>>                  the change,
>>                  on Windows, the VM initialization runs without crash
>>         protection:
>>                  crashes
>>                  will terminate VM immediately without writing an
>> error log;
>>                  also, any
>>                  techniques relying on signals will not work, e.g.
>>         SafeFetch().
>>                  This was partly solved before on a case-by-case base by
>>         wrapping
>>                  code
>>                  sections which may crash in their own __try/__except
>>         wrappers -
>>                  e.g. CPU
>>                  feature probing.
>>                  The change guards the whole of JNI_CreateJavaVM
>>         invocation in
>>                  __try/__except. Unfortunately, for that to compile, I
>>         needed to
>>                  introduce a
>>                  wrapper around JNI_CreateJavaVM and move the whole of
>>                  JNI_CreateJavaVM to a
>>                  new function "JNI_CreateJavaVM_inner".
>>                  This fix also gets rid of various workarounds which
>>         were used
>>                  before to
>>                  guard code sections.
>>                  Thanks for reviewing!
>>                  Oh, on a side note: I tried to figure out if threads
>>         which are
>>                  attached
>>                  from the outside via JNI AttachCurrentThread() are in
>>         any way
>>                  guarded with
>>                  SEH protection. Newly created threads are guarded
>>         because they
>>                  run thru
>>                  java_start() in os_windows.cpp, which adds SEH guards
>>         to all
>>                  frames below.
>>                  But for attached threads, I did not find any SEH guards
>>         - or
>>                  maybe I am
>>                  blind? What does that mean for java code running inside
>>         attached
>>                  threads?
>>                  Regards,
>>                  Thomas Stuefe


More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev mailing list