-
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
8283725: Launching java with "-Xlog:gc*=trace,safepoint*=trace,class*=trace" crashes the JVM #7978
Conversation
…=trace" crashes the JVM
👋 Welcome back dholmes! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@dholmes-ora The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:
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. |
The fix looks harmless. Since it fixes the immediate problem, I think we can integrate it. However, it seems to me that the code is hard to understand. More comments (and perhaps refactoring/rewrite) would be beneficial in a separate RFE. For example, there are many access to arrays without checking/asserting the range. These are quite worrying:
|
@dholmes-ora 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 62 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 for the review @iklam . I think those array accesses are implicitly range-checked if you understand the invariants and relationships, but I agree it is non-obvious to the casual reader. |
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.
Seems okay.
Thanks for the review @robehn /integrate |
Going to push as commit 1ca0ede.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
@dholmes-ora Pushed as commit 1ca0ede. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
I think the loop termination condition in
LogOutput::update_config_string
is not quite correct. We process "deviating tagsets" until there are no more - trackingn_deviants
andn_selections
. However, we can reach the case wheren_deviants == 1
and there are no further selections possible -add_selections
finds no more subsets for the given tagset. This causes the guarantee to fire as it expects to see selections as long as we still have deviations. We can fix this by adding a new check at the bottom of the loop:I do not know what a "deviating tagset" means so it is unclear whether the bug is not checking for this "1 and 0" case, or whether the bug is that we got that final 0. Hopefully someone else may be able to expand on that.
Testing:
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/7978/head:pull/7978
$ git checkout pull/7978
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/7978
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/7978/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 7978
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 7978
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7978.diff