RFR: 8237521: Memory Access API fixes for 32-bit

David Holmes david.holmes at oracle.com
Thu Jan 23 10:22:32 UTC 2020

Hi Nick,

I've cc'd Kim as our C++ expert.

Kim I have a query below if we're entering UB territory ...

On 23/01/2020 6:02 pm, Nick Gasson wrote:
> Hi David,
> On 01/23/20 15:46 pm, David Holmes wrote:
>> So on 32-bit size_t is 32-bit and so may have ~half the capacity allowed
>> for by the jlong size variable. On 64-bit overflow is not possible
>> because jlong is signed and size_t is not.
>> So we only need an overflow check on 32-bit.
> OK. So wrap the check in #ifndef _LP64?

Yes please.

>> But your checks don't look correct to me. If size is already aligned to
>> HeapWordSize then "sz < (size_t)size" won't be true but you already have
>> a completely bogus value for sz when you truncated size to 32-bits.
> On a 32-bit system we already know the upper 32-bits of `size' are zero
> because Unsafe.checkSize() checks this prior to calling the native
> function, so I think the cast is OK.

That precondition needs to be documented in this method then. Hmmm so 
you have a guaranteed 32-bit value, but it might act like an unsigned 
32-bit value - is that the case? Any reason not to have the Java code 
ensure the size acts like a 32-bit signed int? Then no overflow is possible.

That aside IIRC the overflow check is not ideal here because we already 
enter undefined behaviour territory inside align_up if we actually 
overflow. I'm not sure what the officially sanctioned mechanism for 
avoiding overflow would be here given the addition is hidden inside 
align_up. Hopefully Kim can clarify this aspect.


> Thanks,
> Nick

More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev mailing list