-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
8264358: Don't create invalid oop in method handle tracing #3242
Conversation
👋 Welcome back stefank! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
Could I get a review for this? It is a super small change. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good.
@stefank 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:
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 157 new commits pushed to the
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 |
Thanks, @neliasso. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me too.
@stefank Since your change was applied there have been 173 commits pushed to the
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. Pushed as commit b1ebf82. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
Thanks, @TobiHartmann |
The
mh
field in:doesn't always point to a valid object. The
oopDesc*
is then implicitly converted to anoop
here:This gets caught by my ad-hoc verification code that verifies oops when they are created/used.
I propose that we don't create an oop until it
mh
is actually used, and it has been checked that the argument should contain a valid oop. I started with a more elaborate fix that changed the type ofmh
to bevoid*
, but then reverted to a more targetted fix to remove the early oopDesc* > oop conversion.One thing that I am curious about is this code inside trace_method_handle_stub:
Delaying the oopDesc* > oop conversion to after the
has_mh
check solves my verification failure, but I wonder if theoopDesc::is_oop(mh)
call is really needed when we have thehas_mh
check?Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/3242/head:pull/3242
$ git checkout pull/3242
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/3242
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/3242/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 3242
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 3242
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3242.diff