Skip to content
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

8266320: (bf) ReadOnlyBufferException in heap buffer put(String,int,int) should not be conditional #3809

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

marschall
Copy link
Contributor

@marschall marschall commented Apr 30, 2021


Progress

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

Issue

  • JDK-8266320: (bf) ReadOnlyBufferException in heap buffer put(String,int,int) should not be conditional

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/3809/head:pull/3809
$ git checkout pull/3809

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/3809
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/3809/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 3809

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 3809

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3809.diff

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Apr 30, 2021

👋 Welcome back marschall! 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
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Apr 30, 2021

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

  • nio

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.

@openjdk openjdk bot added nio nio-dev@openjdk.org rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Apr 30, 2021
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Apr 30, 2021

Webrevs

@@ -1003,6 +1003,9 @@ public class Basic$Type$
catchReadOnlyBuffer(b, () -> rb.put(new String(new char[rb.remaining() + 1])));
catchReadOnlyBuffer(b, () -> rb.append(new String(new char[rb.remaining() + 1])));

// 8266320
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The bug ID should be deleted here and appended to the list of bug IDs in Basic.java.

@bplb
Copy link
Member

bplb commented Apr 30, 2021

The more recent copyright year needs to be 2021 in all files changed. Basic$Type$.java will need to be generated from Basic-X.java.template using genBasic.sh; these files are not automatically generated.

@@ -285,6 +284,9 @@ class Heap$Type$Buffer$RW$
src.getChars(start, end, hb, ix(pos));
position(pos + length);
return this;
#else[rw]
throw new ReadOnlyBufferException();
#end[rw]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I assume this isn't technically a bug in that it's unspecified which exception is thrown when the buffer is read-only and an index is out of range. The change is okay of course. It would be useful to run the tests without the addition to Basic-X.java.template as I would expect this case to be covered by an existing test already.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

would expect this case to be covered by an existing test already.

Upon closer inspection this line seems to cover it already. It also establishes the existing behavior to be throwing ReadOnlyBufferException and not BufferOverflowException. Should I undo the added test in Basic-X.java.template and not add the bug id to Basic.java?

catchReadOnlyBuffer(b, () -> rb.put(new String(new char[rb.remaining() + 1])));

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I expected it was tested already so I think you can drop the change to Basic-X.java.template from the patch.

That leaves the change to throw ReadOnlyBufferException unconditionally. As I said, if someone were to invoke this method on a read-only CharBuffer and with an out of range start or end index then ReadOnlyBufferException or IndexOutOfBoundsException are applicable. Existing behavior is to throw IOOBE. It's possible, but probably unlikely, that the behavior change will be observed by someone. A Release Note could be helpful.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Probably order of checks with respect to read-only, IOOBEs, and over/underflow has changed in various places and needs to be reviewed.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented May 3, 2021

@marschall 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:

8266320: (bf) ReadOnlyBufferException in heap buffer put(String,int,int) should not be conditional

Reviewed-by: alanb, bpb

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 161 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • ff65920: 8265491: Math Signum optimization for x86
  • 55cc0af: 8266185: Shenandoah: Fix incorrect comment/assertion messages
  • 880c138: 8265349: vmTestbase/../stress/compiler/deoptimize/Test.java fails with OOME due to CodeCache exhaustion.
  • 001c514: 8265322: C2: Simplify control inputs for BarrierSetC2::obj_allocate
  • 194bcec: 8265984: Concurrent GC: Some tests fail "assert(is_frame_safe(f)) failed: Frame must be safe"
  • 1d9ea3a: 8266083: Shenandoah: Consolidate dedup/no dedup oop closures
  • 80941f4: 8234446: Post-CMS workgroup hierarchy cleanup
  • ac760c7: 8266295: Remove unused _concurrent_iteration_safe_limit
  • b42d496: 8266388: C2: Improve constant ShiftCntV on x86
  • 05cfac9: 8266412: Remove redundant TemplateInterpreter entries
  • ... and 151 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/f1f2afda5a0ab8f213e8a1b5324a251928c8d81a...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 (@AlanBateman, @bplb) 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).

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label May 3, 2021
@marschall
Copy link
Contributor Author

/integrate

@openjdk openjdk bot added the sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored label May 3, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented May 3, 2021

@marschall
Your change (at version 150b024) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

@bplb
Copy link
Member

bplb commented May 3, 2021

/sponsor

@openjdk openjdk bot closed this May 3, 2021
@openjdk openjdk bot added integrated Pull request has been integrated and removed sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels May 3, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented May 3, 2021

@bplb @marschall Since your change was applied there have been 161 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • ff65920: 8265491: Math Signum optimization for x86
  • 55cc0af: 8266185: Shenandoah: Fix incorrect comment/assertion messages
  • 880c138: 8265349: vmTestbase/../stress/compiler/deoptimize/Test.java fails with OOME due to CodeCache exhaustion.
  • 001c514: 8265322: C2: Simplify control inputs for BarrierSetC2::obj_allocate
  • 194bcec: 8265984: Concurrent GC: Some tests fail "assert(is_frame_safe(f)) failed: Frame must be safe"
  • 1d9ea3a: 8266083: Shenandoah: Consolidate dedup/no dedup oop closures
  • 80941f4: 8234446: Post-CMS workgroup hierarchy cleanup
  • ac760c7: 8266295: Remove unused _concurrent_iteration_safe_limit
  • b42d496: 8266388: C2: Improve constant ShiftCntV on x86
  • 05cfac9: 8266412: Remove redundant TemplateInterpreter entries
  • ... and 151 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/f1f2afda5a0ab8f213e8a1b5324a251928c8d81a...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit 45760d4.

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
integrated Pull request has been integrated nio nio-dev@openjdk.org
3 participants