JDK-8319382: com/sun/jdi/JdwpAllowTest.java shows failures on AIX if prefixLen of mask is larger than 32 in IPv6 case #17374

JoKern65 · 2024-01-11T15:46:59Z

In parseAllowedMask in socketTransport.c, prefixLen of mask is compared with a maxValue (32 for IPv4, 128 otherwise). This fails if it is larger than 32, because getaddrinfo seems to detect IPv4 family, if IPv6 address has set only some of the last 32 Bits. So we take the wrong maxValue.

Progress

Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

JDK-8319382: com/sun/jdi/JdwpAllowTest.java shows failures on AIX if prefixLen of mask is larger than 32 in IPv6 case (Bug - P4)

Reviewers

Matthias Baesken (@MBaesken - Reviewer)
Alex Menkov (@alexmenkov - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/17374/head:pull/17374
$ git checkout pull/17374

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/17374
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/17374/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 17374

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 17374

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17374.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

bridgekeeper · 2024-01-11T15:47:57Z

👋 Welcome back jkern! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

openjdk · 2024-01-11T15:49:24Z

@JoKern65 The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

serviceability

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

mlbridge · 2024-01-11T15:52:45Z

Webrevs

MBaesken · 2024-01-11T16:00:45Z

src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c

        *isIPv4 = 1;
-    }
+    } else


Better use braces here too in the else part.

alexmenkov · 2024-01-11T19:39:04Z

src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c

-        memcpy(result, &(((struct sockaddr_in6 *)(addrInfo->ai_addr))->sin6_addr), sizeof(*result));
+    struct in_addr addr;
+    struct in6_addr addr6;
+    if (inet_pton (AF_INET6, buffer, &addr6) == 1) {


space is not needed before brace

Suggested change

if (inet_pton (AF_INET6, buffer, &addr6) == 1) {

if (inet_pton(AF_INET6, buffer, &addr6) == 1) {

alexmenkov · 2024-01-11T19:39:26Z

src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c

-        struct in6_addr addr6;
-        convertIPv4ToIPv6(addrInfo->ai_addr, &addr6);
-        memcpy(result, &addr6, sizeof(*result));
+    } else if (inet_pton (AF_INET, buffer, &addr) == 1) {


Space before brace

Suggested change

} else if (inet_pton (AF_INET, buffer, &addr) == 1) {

} else if (inet_pton(AF_INET, buffer, &addr) == 1) {

alexmenkov · 2024-01-11T19:40:31Z

src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c

+    } else if (inet_pton (AF_INET, buffer, &addr) == 1) {
+        // IPv4 address - convert to mapped IPv6
+        struct sockaddr sa;
+        memcpy(&(((struct sockaddr_in*)&sa)->sin_addr), &addr, 4);


Suggested change

memcpy(&(((struct sockaddr_in*)&sa)->sin_addr), &addr, 4);

memcpy(&(((struct sockaddr_in*)&sa)->sin_addr), &addr, sizeof(addr));

alexmenkov · 2024-01-11T19:55:25Z

src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c

+        struct sockaddr sa;
+        memcpy(&(((struct sockaddr_in*)&sa)->sin_addr), &addr, 4);
+        convertIPv4ToIPv6(&sa, &addr6);


Comment for convertIPv4ToIPv6 says: "Input is sockaddr just because all clients have it."
Now it's not true.
I suggest to update convertIPv4ToIPv6 function and make 1st argument const struct in_addr (need to update other call of the function from isPeerAllowed())

RealCLanger · 2024-01-12T08:38:48Z

@MBaesken, I believe with this idea/PR, #16561 could be closed, right?

MBaesken · 2024-01-12T08:55:27Z

@MBaesken, I believe with this idea/PR, #16561 could be closed, right?

Yes we want to use inet_pton ; the other one was just a temporary thing (when I think about it , I could have closed this for quite some time ) .

JoKern65 · 2024-01-12T11:26:02Z

I tried to implement all of Alex proposals.

alexmenkov · 2024-01-12T21:22:35Z

src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c

 /*
- * Input is sockaddr just because all clients have it.
+ * Input is in_addr just because all clients have it.
 */


The comment does not make sense anymore: in_addr represents IPv4 address, in6_addr represents IPv6 address.
Could you remove it please.

openjdk · 2024-01-16T10:14:34Z

@JoKern65 This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8319382: com/sun/jdi/JdwpAllowTest.java shows failures on AIX if prefixLen of mask is larger than 32 in IPv6 case

Reviewed-by: mbaesken, amenkov

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 87 new commits pushed to the master branch:

b891721: 8316756: C2 EA fails with "missing memory path" when encountering unsafe_arraycopy stub call
bf666bc: 8322692: ZGC: avoid over-unrolling due to hidden barrier size
de97c0e: 8290965: PPC64: Implement post-call NOPs
f70667e: 8318112: CSS percentage values are capped at 100%
2063bb8: Merge
bf7bd9a: 8317547: Enhance TLS connection support
c1a568c: 8314307: Improve loop handling
1cc6fbd: 8318588: Windows build failure after JDK-8314468 due to ambiguous call
ed238e8: 8314468: Improve Compiler loops
fac49b8: 8317331: Solaris build failed with "declaration can not follow a statement (E_DECLARATION_IN_CODE)"
... and 77 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/9fd855ed477bb0849ce5c774854844deec0f4c6b...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@MBaesken, @alexmenkov) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

JoKern65 · 2024-01-17T09:01:07Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2024-01-17T09:04:09Z

@JoKern65
Your change (at version f31e1d9) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

MBaesken · 2024-01-17T09:05:35Z

/sponsor

openjdk · 2024-01-17T09:34:11Z

Going to push as commit 22642ff.
Since your change was applied there have been 87 commits pushed to the master branch:

b891721: 8316756: C2 EA fails with "missing memory path" when encountering unsafe_arraycopy stub call
bf666bc: 8322692: ZGC: avoid over-unrolling due to hidden barrier size
de97c0e: 8290965: PPC64: Implement post-call NOPs
f70667e: 8318112: CSS percentage values are capped at 100%
2063bb8: Merge
bf7bd9a: 8317547: Enhance TLS connection support
c1a568c: 8314307: Improve loop handling
1cc6fbd: 8318588: Windows build failure after JDK-8314468 due to ambiguous call
ed238e8: 8314468: Improve Compiler loops
fac49b8: 8317331: Solaris build failed with "declaration can not follow a statement (E_DECLARATION_IN_CODE)"
... and 77 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/9fd855ed477bb0849ce5c774854844deec0f4c6b...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2024-01-17T09:34:19Z

@MBaesken @JoKern65 Pushed as commit 22642ff.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

JDK-8319382

cbc56dd

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Jan 11, 2024

openjdk bot added the serviceability serviceability-dev@openjdk.org label Jan 11, 2024

MBaesken reviewed Jan 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

cosmetic changes

a5bfdd1

alexmenkov reviewed Jan 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

following proposals of alexmenkov

0266dc1

alexmenkov reviewed Jan 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

cosmetic changes

f31e1d9

MBaesken approved these changes Jan 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Jan 16, 2024

alexmenkov approved these changes Jan 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored label Jan 17, 2024

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Jan 17, 2024

openjdk bot closed this Jan 17, 2024

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored labels Jan 17, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

JDK-8319382: com/sun/jdi/JdwpAllowTest.java shows failures on AIX if prefixLen of mask is larger than 32 in IPv6 case #17374

JDK-8319382: com/sun/jdi/JdwpAllowTest.java shows failures on AIX if prefixLen of mask is larger than 32 in IPv6 case #17374

JoKern65 commented Jan 11, 2024 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 11, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 11, 2024

mlbridge bot commented Jan 11, 2024 •

edited

Loading

MBaesken Jan 11, 2024

JoKern65 Jan 11, 2024

alexmenkov Jan 11, 2024

alexmenkov Jan 11, 2024

alexmenkov Jan 11, 2024

alexmenkov Jan 11, 2024

RealCLanger commented Jan 12, 2024

MBaesken commented Jan 12, 2024

JoKern65 commented Jan 12, 2024

alexmenkov Jan 12, 2024

JoKern65 Jan 15, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JoKern65 commented Jan 17, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 17, 2024

MBaesken commented Jan 17, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 17, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 17, 2024

	if (inet_pton (AF_INET6, buffer, &addr6) == 1) {
	if (inet_pton(AF_INET6, buffer, &addr6) == 1) {

	} else if (inet_pton (AF_INET, buffer, &addr) == 1) {
	} else if (inet_pton(AF_INET, buffer, &addr) == 1) {

	memcpy(&(((struct sockaddr_in*)&sa)->sin_addr), &addr, 4);
	memcpy(&(((struct sockaddr_in*)&sa)->sin_addr), &addr, sizeof(addr));

JDK-8319382: com/sun/jdi/JdwpAllowTest.java shows failures on AIX if prefixLen of mask is larger than 32 in IPv6 case #17374

JDK-8319382: com/sun/jdi/JdwpAllowTest.java shows failures on AIX if prefixLen of mask is larger than 32 in IPv6 case #17374

Conversation

JoKern65 commented Jan 11, 2024 • edited by openjdk bot Loading

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

Webrev

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 11, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 11, 2024

mlbridge bot commented Jan 11, 2024 • edited Loading

Webrevs

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RealCLanger commented Jan 12, 2024

MBaesken commented Jan 12, 2024

JoKern65 commented Jan 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openjdk bot commented Jan 16, 2024 • edited Loading

JoKern65 commented Jan 17, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 17, 2024

MBaesken commented Jan 17, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 17, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 17, 2024

JoKern65 commented Jan 11, 2024 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Jan 11, 2024 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Jan 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading