8356694: Removed unused subclass audits in ObjectInput/OutputStream

[liach]

These two subclass audits in ObjectInputStream and ObjectOutputStream were only used when security managers are present, which is no longer the case in releases 24 and newer. Thus, we can remove these two redundant ClassValue and the computation methods safely.

Testing: java/io/Serializable and ObjectInput, jdk tier 1-3 in progress

---

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-8356694: Removed unused subclass audits in ObjectInput/OutputStream (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

• Alan Bateman (@AlanBateman - Reviewer)
• Roger Riggs (@RogerRiggs - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25174/head:pull/25174
$ git checkout pull/25174

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/25174
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25174/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 25174

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 25174

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25174.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back liach! 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]

@liach 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:

8356694: Removed unused subclass audits in ObjectInput/OutputStream

Reviewed-by: alanb, rriggs

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 14 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• f5525ec: 8348410: Preview flag not checked during compilation resulting in runtime crash
• 7ae52ce: 8356390: Rename ResolvedIndyEntry::set_flags to set_has_appendix
• 8545e13: 8356642: RISC-V: enable hotspot/jtreg/compiler/vectorapi/VectorFusedMultiplyAddSubTest.java
• ... and 11 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/436960308cebe020549fcdbb4bcb12c90ce7aeb8...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]

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

• core-libs

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]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (47c77705)

[AlanBateman]

Looks okay, looks like it was missed in the post JEP 486 cleanup.

[RogerRiggs]

looks good

[liach]

Thanks for the reviews! JDK tier 1-3 all pass. Will wait for review from all time zones before integrating.

[liach]

/integrate

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit a96424b.
Since your change was applied there have been 55 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 4c0a0ab: 8353578: Refactor existing usage of internal HKDF impl to use the KDF API
• 10dcdf1: 8347606: Optimize Java implementation of ML-DSA
• 1bded71: 8356605: JRSUIControl.hashCode and JRSUIState.hashCode can use Long.hashCode
• ... and 52 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/436960308cebe020549fcdbb4bcb12c90ce7aeb8...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@liach Pushed as commit a96424b.

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