RFR (S): 8211909: JDWP Transport Listener: dt_socket thread crash

Daniel D. Daugherty daniel.daugherty at oracle.com
Mon Oct 15 15:05:19 UTC 2018

On 10/15/18 1:12 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211909
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8211909/webrev/

     No comments.

Thumbs up on the code changes.

> The crash occurs when trying to access a thread that was returned as 
> part of JVM TI GetThreadGroupChildren. The problem is that the JVM TI 
> code tries to use the Threads_lock to ensure atomic access to the 
> ThreadGroup's threads and child groups:
>     { // Cannot allow thread or group counts to change.
>       MutexLocker mu(Threads_lock);
> but the Threads_lock does not control concurrency in the Java code 
> that can cause threads to be added and removed, so we do not get a 
> stable snapshot of the thread array and its length, and contents. To 
> get a stable snapshot we have to use the same synchronization 
> mechanism as used by the Java code: lock the monitor of the 
> ThreadGroup instance.

Agreed that the wrong locking mechanism was used.

Side note: The '// Cannot allow thread or group counts to change.'
comment was added sometime after we switched from TeamWare to

Looks like all three uses of Threads_lock that you removed
date back to the original JVM/TI delta:

$ sgv src/share/vm/prims/jvmtiEnv.cpp | grep '{ MutexLocker 
1.1 { MutexLocker mu(Threads_lock);
1.1 { MutexLocker mu(Threads_lock);
1.1 { MutexLocker mu(Threads_lock);
3358 lines
No id keywords (cm7)

$ sp -r1.1 src/share/vm/prims/jvmtiEnv.cpp

D 1.1 03/01/28 20:52:06 rfield 1 0 03130/00000/00000
date and time created 03/01/28 20:52:06 by rfield

> Two other pointless acquisitions of the Threads_lock, in GetThreadInfo 
> and GetThreadGroupInfo, were also removed. These functions could 
> report an inconsistent snapshot of the Thread or ThreadGroup state, if 
> the mutable state is mutated concurrently. Again we could acquire the 
> object's monitor to prevent this but it is unclear that there is any 
> real benefit in doing so - after all the thread/group information 
> could change immediately after it has been read anyway. So here I just 
> delete the Threads_lock usage.

Also agreed. I ran into all three of these in the Thread-SMR project
and I couldn't convince myself to remove the use of Threads_lock for
these two. I missed that the wrong lock was used for JVM/TI

Very nice catch!


> Testing: mach5 tier 1-3
>          JVM TI tests (serviceability/jvmti vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/)
> A regression test may be possible if we call GetThreadGroupChildren in 
> a loop, whilst threads add and remove themselves from the group 
> concurrently. But it is awkward to write.
> Thanks,
> David
> Thanks,
> David

More information about the serviceability-dev mailing list