8253702: BigSur version number reported as 10.16, should be 11.nn #2530

RogerRiggs · 2021-02-11T17:14:35Z

On Mac Os X, the OSVersionTest detected a difference in the version number reported in the os.version property
and the version number provided by sw_vers -productVersion.

When the java runtime is built with XCode 11.3, the os.version is reported as 10.16
though the current version numbering is 11.nnn.

The workaround is to derive the os.version number from the ProductBuildVersion.
When the toolchain is updated to XCode 12.nnn it can be removed.
The workaround is enabled only when the environment variable SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT is unset.
When the SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT is set in the environment the version number is reported as reported by Mac OS X.

Progress

Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue
Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

JDK-8253702: BigSur version number reported as 10.16, should be 11.nn

Reviewers

Brian Burkhalter (@bplb - Reviewer)
Kevin Rushforth (@kevinrushforth - Author)

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/2530/head:pull/2530
$ git checkout pull/2530

bridgekeeper · 2021-02-11T17:14:48Z

👋 Welcome back rriggs! 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 · 2021-02-11T17:15:35Z

@RogerRiggs 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 · 2021-02-11T17:18:49Z

Webrevs

kevinrushforth · 2021-02-11T17:31:34Z

src/java.base/macosx/native/libjava/java_props_macosx.c

-        } else {
-            nsVerStr = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"%ld.%ld.%ld",
-                    (long)osVer.majorVersion, (long)osVer.minorVersion, (long)osVer.patchVersion];
+        // Copy out the char* if running on version other than pre-10.16 Mac OS (10.16 == 11.x)


Isn't the comment backwards from what the test does? I would think it should be "if running on version other than 10.16 Mac OS ...". Or am I missing something?

@kevinrushforth I think you are correct. This is actually mea culpa I think as I had provided in a Slack thread a failed attempt at a patch for this which contained this comment.

So the words "other than" are too subtle?

It's a double negative, unless I'm reading it incorrectly: "other than pre-10.16" I interpret as "not pre-10.16" or "10.16".

// Copy out the char* if running on version 10.x[.y], where x < 16 ?

It will also do it if running on 11.x[.y] (once Xcode is upgraded), right?

kevinrushforth · 2021-02-11T18:53:08Z

src/java.base/macosx/native/libjava/java_props_macosx.c

+            }
+            // Copy out the char*
+            osVersionCStr = strdup([nsVerStr UTF8String]);
+        } else if (getenv("SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT") == NULL) {


If version is 10.16 and SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT is set, you will fall through to the pre-10.9 Mac OS code fallback. Just checking to see if that's what you intended.

FWIW, it seems to work OK using the legacy fallback path (reports 10.16 if I set SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT=1).

The same version string is available from both APIs, reading from the SystemVersion.plist is a bit slower.
It would be clearer to move the checking of SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT to the first test (line:252)
so the version info does not need to be read from the files.

kevinrushforth · 2021-02-11T19:13:26Z

I tested this, and get the following behavior on macOS 11.0.1 with a JDK compiled with Xcode 11.3.1 and your patch:

SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT not set : 11.0
SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT=1 : 10.16
SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT=0 : 11.0.1

So the fallback path reports what could be considered a more accurate version, at least on my laptop. Since I'm not sure what is expected, you can decide what to do with this information.

openjdk · 2021-02-11T19:28:01Z

@RogerRiggs 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:

8253702: BigSur version number reported as 10.16, should be 11.nn

Reviewed-by: bpb, kcr

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 22 new commits pushed to the master branch:

33fcd32: 8261659: JDK-8261027 causes a Tier1 validate-source failure
3aa1b4c: 8261623: reference to javac internals in Extern class
350303d: 8260221: java.util.Formatter throws wrong exception for mismatched flags in %% conversion
6475d47: 8261655: [PPC64] Build broken after JDK-8260941
c0e805a: 8261654: Missing license header in Signatures.java
b670efd: 8261072: AArch64: Fix MacroAssembler::get_thread convention
59b8d59: 8261481: Cannot read Kerberos settings in dynamic store on macOS Big Sur
9f81ca8: 8261230: GC tracing of page sizes are wrong in a few places
40ae993: 8261027: AArch64: Support for LSE atomics C++ HotSpot code
9ffabf3: 8252971: WindowsFileAttributes does not know about Unix domain sockets
... and 12 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/1740de2a0d41d0689ae9bb069b93ab267a2b9495...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.

kevinrushforth

Looks good.

RogerRiggs · 2021-02-12T16:41:56Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2021-02-12T16:42:38Z

@RogerRiggs Since your change was applied there have been 22 commits pushed to the master branch:

33fcd32: 8261659: JDK-8261027 causes a Tier1 validate-source failure
3aa1b4c: 8261623: reference to javac internals in Extern class
350303d: 8260221: java.util.Formatter throws wrong exception for mismatched flags in %% conversion
6475d47: 8261655: [PPC64] Build broken after JDK-8260941
c0e805a: 8261654: Missing license header in Signatures.java
b670efd: 8261072: AArch64: Fix MacroAssembler::get_thread convention
59b8d59: 8261481: Cannot read Kerberos settings in dynamic store on macOS Big Sur
9f81ca8: 8261230: GC tracing of page sizes are wrong in a few places
40ae993: 8261027: AArch64: Support for LSE atomics C++ HotSpot code
9ffabf3: 8252971: WindowsFileAttributes does not know about Unix domain sockets
... and 12 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/1740de2a0d41d0689ae9bb069b93ab267a2b9495...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit 6675775.

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

RealCLanger · 2021-02-15T13:15:54Z

Thanks for the fix! This is probably the best we can get without spawning an external process to e.g. call sw_vers to get the actual, non-compat version number.

Unfortunately, the test java/lang/System/OsVersionTest.java will still fail on systems where the MacOS version has a patch number (>1), e.g. the current MacOS 11.2.1 - in line with Kevin's report about the behavior on an 11.0.1 system.

I will open another ticket and propose a test update that relaxes the check in the test a little...

marcphilipp · 2021-09-24T14:33:30Z

With macOS 11.6 this fix no longer works. @sormuras will create a proper bug report. 😉

RealCLanger · 2021-09-24T14:38:14Z

Hi Marc,
cc @sormuras,

not necessary, it was already reported & fixed: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8269850 😄

Cheers
Christoph

marcphilipp · 2021-09-24T14:47:10Z

Thanks! I searched the bug tracker but couldn't find it. Will that be backported to JDK 11 and/or 17?

RealCLanger · 2021-09-24T14:50:34Z

Yup:
openjdk/jdk17u#85
openjdk/jdk11u#12

For OpenJDK 11u I hope to get it into the October Update. Can't speak for 17u as this is maintained by Oracle. Maybe @sormuras can help here :)

8253702: BigSur java/lang/System/OsVersionTest.java: 10.16 != 11.0

7ac2b6a

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Feb 11, 2021

openjdk bot added the core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.org label Feb 11, 2021

kevinrushforth reviewed Feb 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

Correct double-negative in 'other than 10.16'

c7b0585

kevinrushforth reviewed Feb 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

optimize case of 10.16 and SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT is set

09f6fd0

bplb approved these changes Feb 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Feb 11, 2021

kevinrushforth approved these changes Feb 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

RogerRiggs changed the title ~~8253702: BigSur java/lang/System/OsVersionTest.java: 10.16 != 11.0~~ 8253702: BigSur version number reported as 10.16, should be 11.nn Feb 12, 2021

openjdk bot closed this Feb 12, 2021

openjdk bot added integrated Pull request has been integrated and removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Feb 12, 2021

RogerRiggs deleted the 8253702-osversion-test branch March 5, 2021 20:24

8253702: BigSur version number reported as 10.16, should be 11.nn #2530

8253702: BigSur version number reported as 10.16, should be 11.nn #2530

RogerRiggs commented Feb 11, 2021 •

edited by openjdk bot

bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 11, 2021

openjdk bot commented Feb 11, 2021

mlbridge bot commented Feb 11, 2021 •

edited

kevinrushforth Feb 11, 2021

bplb Feb 11, 2021

RogerRiggs Feb 11, 2021

kevinrushforth Feb 11, 2021

bplb Feb 11, 2021 •

edited

kevinrushforth Feb 11, 2021

kevinrushforth Feb 11, 2021

kevinrushforth Feb 11, 2021

RogerRiggs Feb 11, 2021

kevinrushforth commented Feb 11, 2021

openjdk bot commented Feb 11, 2021 •

edited

kevinrushforth left a comment

RogerRiggs commented Feb 12, 2021

openjdk bot commented Feb 12, 2021

RealCLanger commented Feb 15, 2021

marcphilipp commented Sep 24, 2021 •

edited by bridgekeeper bot

RealCLanger commented Sep 24, 2021

marcphilipp commented Sep 24, 2021

RealCLanger commented Sep 24, 2021

8253702: BigSur version number reported as 10.16, should be 11.nn #2530

8253702: BigSur version number reported as 10.16, should be 11.nn #2530

Conversation

RogerRiggs commented Feb 11, 2021 • edited by openjdk bot

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Download

bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 11, 2021

openjdk bot commented Feb 11, 2021

mlbridge bot commented Feb 11, 2021 • edited

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

bplb Feb 11, 2021 • edited

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

kevinrushforth commented Feb 11, 2021

openjdk bot commented Feb 11, 2021 • edited

kevinrushforth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RogerRiggs commented Feb 12, 2021

openjdk bot commented Feb 12, 2021

RealCLanger commented Feb 15, 2021

marcphilipp commented Sep 24, 2021 • edited by bridgekeeper bot

RealCLanger commented Sep 24, 2021

marcphilipp commented Sep 24, 2021

RealCLanger commented Sep 24, 2021

RogerRiggs commented Feb 11, 2021 •

edited by openjdk bot

mlbridge bot commented Feb 11, 2021 •

edited

bplb Feb 11, 2021 •

edited

openjdk bot commented Feb 11, 2021 •

edited

marcphilipp commented Sep 24, 2021 •

edited by bridgekeeper bot