8231454: File lock in Windows on a loaded jar due to a leak in Introspector::getBeanInfo

[basil]

Hi all,

This pull request contains a backport of JDK-8231454 (openjdk/jdk@2ee2b4ae19d).

There was a trivial merge conflict in Introspector.java.

The commit being backported was authored by @mrserb on October 20, 2020, and was reviewed by @azuev-java.

See JENKINS-63766 for the motivation behind this backport.

I tested this PR locally by running make run-test TEST=test/jdk/java/beans/Introspector/FlushClassInfoCache.java. In addition, I verified that JENKINS-63766 could no longer be reproduced with this backport applied.

Thanks!

---

Progress

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

Issue

• JDK-8231454: File lock in Windows on a loaded jar due to a leak in Introspector::getBeanInfo

Reviewers

• Martin Doerr (@TheRealMDoerr - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to 21b74d28

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk11u-dev pull/1103/head:pull/1103
$ git checkout pull/1103

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/1103
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk11u-dev pull/1103/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 1103

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 1103

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk11u-dev/pull/1103.diff

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back basil! 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]

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 03: Full (3e526afb)
• 02: Full (d8be0815)
• 01: Full - Incremental (21b74d28)
• 00: Full (78f60cef)

[basil]

I do not have JBS access. Can someone please submit the following comment with the jdk11u-fix-request label:

See JENKINS-63766 for the motivation behind this backport. Jenkins users complained about a metaspace leak, and I was able to see the issue by running with -verbose:class on OpenJDK 9-15 but not on OpenJDK 8, 16, or 17. Bisection showed this issue was resolved in openjdk/jdk@2ee2b4ae19d, and I verified locally in an end-to-end testing scenario that backporting openjdk/jdk@2ee2b4ae19d to jdk11u-dev resolves the leak I was experiencing in JENKINS-63766 on OpenJDK 11. I also successfully executed the test from openjdk/jdk@2ee2b4ae19d locally by running make run-test TEST=test/jdk/java/beans/Introspector/FlushClassInfoCache.java. The change applied cleanly other than a trivial merge conflict in Introspector.java.

[TheRealMDoerr]

Backport LGTM. Thanks for doing it!
I've taken a look at JDK-8222799 which is causing the minor conflict. I wonder if it would be cleaner to backport that one first? Not required, but I just wanted to ask.

[openjdk]

@basil This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8231454: File lock in Windows on a loaded jar due to a leak in Introspector::getBeanInfo

Reviewed-by: mdoerr

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 no new commits pushed to the master branch. If another commit should be pushed before you perform the /integrate command, your PR will be automatically rebased. If you prefer to avoid any potential 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 (@TheRealMDoerr) 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]

@basil this pull request can not be integrated into pr/1106 due to one or more merge conflicts. To resolve these merge conflicts and update this pull request you can run the following commands in the local repository for your personal fork:

git checkout classinfo
git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk11u-dev pr/1106
git merge FETCH_HEAD
# resolve conflicts and follow the instructions given by git merge
git commit -m "Merge pr/1106"
git push

[basil]

I've taken a look at JDK-8222799 which is causing the minor conflict. I wonder if it would be cleaner to backport that one first? Not required, but I just wanted to ask.

I have created #1106 to backport JDK-8222799 which is causing the minor conflict and set the upstream of this PR to pr/1106. This PR is now a clean backport.

[basil]

/clean

[openjdk]

@basil Only OpenJDK Committers can use the /clean command

[basil]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@basil
Your change (at version 3e526af) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[TheRealMDoerr]

/sponsor

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 22fc6ce.

[openjdk]

@TheRealMDoerr @basil Pushed as commit 22fc6ce.

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