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

marschall · 2021-04-30T07:20:44Z

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

Alan Bateman (@AlanBateman - Reviewer)
Brian Burkhalter (@bplb - Reviewer)

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

…nt) should not be conditional

bridgekeeper · 2021-04-30T07:20:55Z

👋 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 · 2021-04-30T07:22:21Z

@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.

mlbridge · 2021-04-30T07:26:10Z

Webrevs

bplb · 2021-04-30T15:02:41Z

test/jdk/java/nio/Buffer/Basic-X.java.template

@@ -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


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

bplb · 2021-04-30T15:05:25Z

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.

AlanBateman · 2021-04-30T15:25:40Z

src/java.base/share/classes/java/nio/Heap-X-Buffer.java.template

@@ -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]


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.

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?

jdk/test/jdk/java/nio/Buffer/Basic-X.java.template

Line 1003 in 5c083e8

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

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.

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

openjdk · 2021-05-03T10:54:04Z

@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).

marschall · 2021-05-03T16:29:50Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2021-05-03T16:31:13Z

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

bplb · 2021-05-03T17:27:21Z

/sponsor

openjdk · 2021-05-03T17:29:09Z

@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.

8266320: (bf) ReadOnlyBufferException in heap buffer put(String,int,i…

dd7177b

…nt) should not be conditional

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

bplb reviewed Apr 30, 2021

View reviewed changes

AlanBateman reviewed Apr 30, 2021

View reviewed changes

marschall added 2 commits May 1, 2021 17:05

Update copyright year

43e74a8

Undo changes to tests

150b024

AlanBateman approved these changes May 3, 2021

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label May 3, 2021

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

bplb approved these changes May 3, 2021

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot closed this May 3, 2021

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

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

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

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

marschall commented Apr 30, 2021 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

bridgekeeper bot commented Apr 30, 2021

openjdk bot commented Apr 30, 2021

mlbridge bot commented Apr 30, 2021 •

edited

Loading

bplb Apr 30, 2021

bplb commented Apr 30, 2021

AlanBateman Apr 30, 2021

marschall May 1, 2021

AlanBateman May 1, 2021

bplb May 3, 2021

openjdk bot commented May 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

marschall commented May 3, 2021

openjdk bot commented May 3, 2021

bplb commented May 3, 2021

openjdk bot commented May 3, 2021

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

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

Conversation

marschall commented Apr 30, 2021 • edited by openjdk bot Loading

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

bridgekeeper bot commented Apr 30, 2021

openjdk bot commented Apr 30, 2021

mlbridge bot commented Apr 30, 2021 • edited Loading

Webrevs

bplb Apr 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bplb commented Apr 30, 2021

AlanBateman Apr 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marschall May 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlanBateman May 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bplb May 3, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openjdk bot commented May 3, 2021 • edited Loading

marschall commented May 3, 2021

openjdk bot commented May 3, 2021

bplb commented May 3, 2021

openjdk bot commented May 3, 2021

marschall commented Apr 30, 2021 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Apr 30, 2021 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented May 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading