8339190: Parameter arrays that are capped during annotation processing report incorrect length by nizarbenalla · Pull Request #21663 · openjdk/jdk

nizarbenalla · 2024-10-23T11:45:15Z

Can I please get reviews for this change.

The regression test creates temporary files in tmpdir to check that the warning is emitted correctly.
I've also added the new warning to example.not-yet.txt as the example would require a very large file.

Here is the truncated result of running javap -c -p -v (before the change) on ClassAnnotationWithLength_65536_RUNTIME.class and ClassAnnotationWithLength_65537_RUNTIME..class respectively.

  static int x;
    descriptor: I
    flags: (0x0008) ACC_STATIC
    RuntimeVisibleAnnotations:
      0: #14(#15=s#16,#17=I#18,#19=[])
        MyCustomAnno(
          value="custom"
          count=42
          arr=[]
        )

  static int x;
    descriptor: I
    flags: (0x0008) ACC_STATIC
    RuntimeVisibleAnnotations:
      0: #14(#15=s#16,#17=I#18,#19=[J#20])
        MyCustomAnno(
          value="custom"
          count=42
          arr=[-1l]
        )

After the change a compile-time error is thrown

javac ClassAnnotationWithLength_65536_RUNTIME.java 
error: Annotation array element too large in "MyCustomAnno"

TIA

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
Change requires CSR request JDK-8342697 to be approved

Issues

JDK-8339190: Parameter arrays that are capped during annotation processing report incorrect length (Bug - P3)
JDK-8342697: Parameter arrays that are capped during annotation processing report incorrect length (CSR)

Reviewers

Vicente Romero (@vicente-romero-oracle - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/21663/head:pull/21663
$ git checkout pull/21663

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/21663
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/21663/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 21663

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 21663

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21663.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

bridgekeeper · 2024-10-23T11:46:03Z

👋 Welcome back nbenalla! 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 · 2024-10-23T11:46:44Z

@nizarbenalla 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:

8339190: Parameter arrays that are capped during annotation processing report incorrect length

Reviewed-by: vromero

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 140 new commits pushed to the master branch:

8b47497: 8331682: Slow networks/Impatient clients can potentially send unencrypted TLSv1.3 alerts that won't parse on the server
0668e18: 8343234: (bf) Move java/nio/Buffer/LimitDirectMemory.java from ProblemList.txt to ProblemList-Virtual.txt
774de27: 8343497: Missing DEF_STATIC_JNI_OnLoad in libjimage and libsaproc native libraries
1cc3586: 8343551: Missing copyright header update in Charset-X-Coder.java.template
1c44834: 8333582: Update CLDR to Version 46.0
23fa1a3: 8343484: Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotations (nio)
7f8450c: 8343473: Update copyright year of AddmodsOption.java
b74652b: 8343167: Unnecessary define checks in InterpreterRuntime after JDK-8199809
646d64e: 8340307: Add explanation around MemorySegment:reinterpret regarding arenas
8d6cfba: 8336267: Method and Constructor signature parsing can be shared on the root object
... and 130 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/b0ac633b2d0076d64b463b2a6ce19abf6b12c50f...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.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

openjdk · 2024-10-23T11:47:23Z

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

compiler

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.

liach · 2024-10-23T11:48:10Z

test/langtools/tools/javac/annotations/ParameterArraySizeLimit.java

+                """;
+
+        FileWriter writer = new FileWriter(String.valueOf(out));
+        BufferedWriter bufferedWriter = new BufferedWriter(writer);


This can be simplified to Files.newBufferedWriter.

mlbridge · 2024-10-23T13:41:42Z

Webrevs

- realized I need to change the condition in my for loop

lahodaj · 2024-10-23T14:28:55Z

I am sorry, but producing warnings is IMO a wrong solution. While the Java language does not impose limits, the classfile format does, and if we cannot generate a classfile that corresponds to the input Java file, javac should not produce anything and should finish up with a compile-time error. That is what is done for other limits as well. Like, for example, here:

jdk/src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/jvm/Gen.java

Line 940 in 964d8d2

log.error(tree.pos(), Errors.LimitParameters);

(Although this check for annotations may need to be done in ClassWriter.)

nizarbenalla · 2024-10-23T18:16:57Z

I will update this PR and the CSR to fail if we detect an overflow, rather than warn users. Thanks Jan

Though I am not sure why the check would need to be done when writing the classfile, why not do it earlier?

liach · 2024-10-24T04:22:50Z

src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/code/TypeAnnotations.java


+        private void checkArraySize(List<JCExpression> tree) {
+            //check if attribute length exceeds maximum unsigned 16-bit value
+            if (!sigOnly && tree != null && (tree.size() >>> 16) > 0) {


Should we use (tree.size & ~0xFFFF) != 0? This is how classfile API checks the value compatibility, and I wonder how other places in javac does so.

I was trying to chose between this and tree.size & ~0xFFFF, I think javac will sometimes check if an int is larger than 0xFFFF

If you use & ~0xFFFF you must use != 0 as the mask includes the sign bit.

I think the other checks are implemented as simple value > limit => error checks:

jdk/src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/jvm/Code.java

Line 114 in d8430ef

if (cp > ClassFile.MAX_CODE) {

jdk/src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/jvm/Gen.java

Line 938 in d8430ef

if (Code.width(types.erasure(env.enclMethod.sym.type).getParameterTypes()) + extras >

True, it may overflow, but if it would overflow once, it might overflow twice (back to positive numbers), so if/when that becomes a problem, we'd probably need something more complex. And it will be easier to find if the pattern is as close to the existing patterns as possible. So, I guess I would suggest to use a simple > ClassFile.MAX_ANNOTATIONS.

…-arrays

lahodaj · 2024-10-29T12:30:57Z

I will update this PR and the CSR to fail if we detect an overflow, rather than warn users. Thanks Jan

Though I am not sure why the check would need to be done when writing the classfile, why not do it earlier?

Some of the existing similar "limit" errors are basically only detectable when writing the classfile. So, for consistency, I think it would be good to do it at some place close to where the other errors are detected.

In principle, the javac "frontend" should mostly care about JLS, and JLS is not imposing any limits. The backend, when writing, needs to care about JVMS, which imposes limits, and hence that's probably the correct place to report the error.

generate error when param array is too large generate error closer to other limits, during code gen

nizarbenalla · 2024-10-31T18:12:09Z

I've updated the PR to now generate a compile-time error when the annotation array length exceeds the limit.
Also expanded the test to check type annotations and annotations with class/runtime retention. The test runs in ~4 seconds on my machine.

I can make the test smaller if necessary. Or maybe expand it to include a negative test to check the code runs as intended.

Will update the CSR next.

vicente-romero-oracle

general comment. I wonder if we should add a predicate to com.sun.tools.javac.jvm.Target ala: Target::runtimeUseNestAccess() so that we don't generate this error for targets < 24, the rest looks good to me

nizarbenalla · 2024-10-31T22:37:25Z

general comment. I wonder if we should add a predicate to com.sun.tools.javac.jvm.Target ala: Target::runtimeUseNestAccess() so that we don't generate this error for targets < 24, the rest looks good to me

I can easily add it if you or other Reviewers think it's a good idea. But it might not be worth it? The purpose of this change was to prevent generating classfiles that don't match the input files.

I will bring it up in the CSR comment section.

vicente-romero-oracle · 2024-11-01T17:45:05Z

general comment. I wonder if we should add a predicate to com.sun.tools.javac.jvm.Target ala: Target::runtimeUseNestAccess() so that we don't generate this error for targets < 24, the rest looks good to me

I can easily add it if you or other Reviewers think it's a good idea. But it might not be worth it? The purpose of this change was to prevent generating classfiles that don't match the input files.

I will bring it up in the CSR comment section.

not sure tbh, probably not necessary

vicente-romero-oracle

looks good

nizarbenalla · 2024-11-07T10:29:30Z

Passes tier 1-3, thanks all for the reviews on this. Here goes

/integrate

openjdk · 2024-11-07T10:30:16Z

Going to push as commit 4244682.
Since your change was applied there have been 190 commits pushed to the master branch:

7620b12: 8323803: ConstantOopReadValue::print_on should print 'null' instead of 'nullptr'
592a48b: 8321997: Increase upper limit of LoopOptsCount flag
c3df050: 8343726: [BACKOUT] NMT should not use ThreadCritical
0e1c1b7: 8343452: Incorrect WINDOWS build variable is used in macroAssembler_x86.cpp
619b4d5: 8334107: Specification for MemorySegment::get/setString could use some clarification
a6c85da: 8342945: Replace predicate walking code in get_assertion_predicates() used for Loop Unswitching and cleaning useless Template Assertion Predicates with a predicate visitor
97b681e: 8340586: JdkJfrEvent::get_all_klasses stores non-strong oops in JNI handles
f2316f6: 8343505: Problemlist java/lang/Thread/jni/AttachCurrentThread/AttachTest.java
9e31e78: 8342647: [macosx] Clean up the NSInvocation based call to NSProcessInfo.operatingSystemVersion
e33dc13: 8343343: Misc crash dump improvements on more platforms after JDK-8294160
... and 180 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/b0ac633b2d0076d64b463b2a6ce19abf6b12c50f...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2024-11-07T10:30:27Z

@nizarbenalla Pushed as commit 4244682.

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

JDK-8339190

9738cf8

openjdk bot added the compiler compiler-dev@openjdk.org label Oct 23, 2024

liach reviewed Oct 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

nizarbenalla added 2 commits October 23, 2024 12:52

simplify BufferedWriter creation

09bcf52

try to remove trailing whitespace

e44f23e

nizarbenalla marked this pull request as ready for review October 23, 2024 13:36

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Oct 23, 2024

nizarbenalla changed the title ~~8342697: Parameter arrays that are capped during annotation processing report incorrect length~~ 8339190: Parameter arrays that are capped during annotation processing report incorrect length Oct 23, 2024

openjdk bot added the csr Pull request needs approved CSR before integration label Oct 23, 2024

- remove unused import

80d25a1

- realized I need to change the condition in my for loop

liach reviewed Oct 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into 8339190-Parameter…

fba7e18

…-arrays

nizarbenalla added 2 commits October 31, 2024 04:21

revert changes to TypeAnnotations

6cdffda

generate error when param array is too large generate error closer to other limits, during code gen

Update test

35b89ec

vicente-romero-oracle reviewed Oct 31, 2024

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot removed the csr Pull request needs approved CSR before integration label Nov 1, 2024

vicente-romero-oracle approved these changes Nov 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Nov 4, 2024

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Nov 7, 2024

openjdk bot closed this Nov 7, 2024

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Nov 7, 2024

nizarbenalla deleted the 8339190-Parameter-arrays branch January 23, 2025 14:04

Conversation

nizarbenalla commented Oct 23, 2024 • edited by openjdk bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Progress

Issues

Reviewers

Reviewing

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Oct 23, 2024

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Oct 23, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Oct 23, 2024

Uh oh!

liach Oct 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Oct 23, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Webrevs

Uh oh!

lahodaj commented Oct 23, 2024

Uh oh!

nizarbenalla commented Oct 23, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

liach Oct 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nizarbenalla Oct 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

liach Oct 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lahodaj Oct 29, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lahodaj commented Oct 29, 2024

Uh oh!

nizarbenalla commented Oct 31, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vicente-romero-oracle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nizarbenalla commented Oct 31, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vicente-romero-oracle commented Nov 1, 2024

Uh oh!

vicente-romero-oracle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nizarbenalla commented Nov 7, 2024

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 7, 2024

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 7, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

nizarbenalla commented Oct 23, 2024 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

openjdk bot commented Oct 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Oct 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

nizarbenalla commented Oct 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

nizarbenalla commented Oct 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading

nizarbenalla commented Oct 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading