Draft JVMS changes for Nestmates

David Holmes david.holmes at oracle.com
Mon Apr 24 07:42:38 UTC 2017

Hi Dan,

On 22/04/2017 2:54 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 2017, at 5:36 PM, David Holmes <David.Holmes at oracle.com
>> <mailto:David.Holmes at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>> The rule is:
>>> 1) if the referenced method name is not <init> (cheap), and
>>> 2) if the referenced class name is the name of a superclass or direct
>>> superinterface (cheap—superclass chain is already loaded), and
>>> 3) if the loaded referenced class actually is a superclass or direct
>>> superinterface (almost always true and cheap, unless there's a name
>>> clash), and
>>> 4) if the resolved method is not private (pretty cheap, because
>>> referenced class is already loaded)
>>> *then* check that the stack type is assignable to the current class type.
>>> This is, essentially, the same logic being employed by the old
>>> protected check: if the reference is to a superclass, find the
>>> field/method and decide if it's protected; if the reference is to
>>> some other class, don't worry about it.
>> So here's the problem, in the spec 5.4 states:
>> "Linking a class or interface involves verifying and preparing that
>> class or interface, its direct superclass, its direct superinterfaces,
>> and its element type (if it is an array type), if necessary.
>> Resolution of symbolic references in the class or interface is an
>> optional part of linking."
>> So resolution is _optional_ at link time! But your updated spec
>> requires resolution to happen before we can complete verification!
>> When we do the verification of invokespecial in the VM it is before
>> resolution and we do not know if the target method is private or not.
> In the narrow case of an invokespecial in which (1), (2), and (3) are
> true, yes, step (4) requires the verifier to find the declaration that
> is being referenced and decide if it is 'private'.
> This is the same as what the old check has always required for
> every invokevirtual, getfield, and putfield: in narrow circumstances,
> track down the declared method and decide if it is <protected in another
> package> or not.
> I've tried to be careful not to claim this process is actually
> resolution. It could be, but it could also be a simulation of resolution
> that just tells you what method would be found if resolution occurred.
> Specific text (tweaked slightly since published version): "Given a
> symbolic reference to a field or method in class _ReferencedClass_ named
> _MemberName_ with descriptor _MemberDescriptor_, identifies the field or
> method _Member_ declared in class _DeclaringClass_ that would be
> produced by resolution, as specified in [5.4.3]."
> I am curious about the actual implemented details of this in the
> protected check. I'm happy to make adjustments to the spec to align with
> how we actually do this.

It looks like we do the "pseudo-resolution" of the method 
(InstanceKlass::uncached_lookup_method()) or field 

I'm now curious about whether we essentially do this twice! That would 
be very inefficient. :(

That aside, it seems it is okay for the spec to require this kind of 


> —Dan

More information about the valhalla-spec-observers mailing list