[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-serviceability-dev
Subject:    Re: 8173941 Re: SA does not work if executable is DSO
From:       David Holmes <david.holmes () oracle ! com>
Date:       2017-02-13 3:58:36
Message-ID: aed5b7a9-7147-be4a-2165-07109c3619c6 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 13/02/2017 1:54 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> > I'm a bit unclear on the problem being fixed - do I take it that
> Oracle JDK binaries are not built as DSO's and so do not experience this
> problem? Is there a reasonable way to test this (is it covered by any
> existing tests) ?
> 
> You cannot check this issue with Oracle JDK because it is not DSO (PIE).
> This fix is only confirmed with DSO (PIE) binaries.
> So I did not make testcase for this issue.
> 
> You have to check with DSO build as below:
> 
> ```
> $ bash configure --with-native-debug-symbols=internal --enable-debug \
> --disable-warnings-as-errors --disable-hotspot-gtest \
> --with-extra-cflags=-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 \
> --with-extra-cxxflags=-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 \
> --with-extra-ldflags=-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld $ make images
> ```

Ok. Thanks.

David

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Yasumasa
> 
> 
> 2017-02-13 9:06 GMT+09:00 David Holmes <david.holmes@oracle.com
> <mailto:david.holmes@oracle.com>>:
> 
> Hi Volker,
> 
> On 10/02/2017 11:21 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com
> <mailto:aph@redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
> On 10/02/17 03:13, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
> 
> We can calculate start address of executable (java
> command) through entry
> point.
> I updated webrev:
> 
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8173941/webrev.01/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eysuenaga/JDK-8173941/webrev.01/>
> 
> This patch can ignore page size.
> 
> 
> Excellent.  I think this is safe for JDK 9, but there may be
> some
> argument about whether we'll be able to get it in now.  I'm
> happy to
> approve it, but I guess we should appeal to hotspot-dev and
> see what
> people say.
> 
> 
> I haven't looked at this change in full detail until now so this is
> not a review. But the change looks reasonable and non-intrusive so I
> strongly support its integration into jdk9.
> 
> 
> I don't know this code or the issue being addressed, but I have run
> this through your JPRT testing just to make sure there are no surprises.
> 
> I'm a bit unclear on the problem being fixed - do I take it that
> Oracle JDK binaries are not built as DSO's and so do not experience
> this problem? Is there a reasonable way to test this (is it covered
> by any existing tests) ?
> 
> Thanks,
> David
> -----
> 
> 
> It also doesn't touch the libjvm.so which means it can't
> introduce any
> harm. Second, it's good to see that somebody cares for the SA tools.
> It would be nice if somebody from the SA team could have a look at
> this and sponsor it.
> 
> @Andrew: as this bug is assigned to you, I'd suggest to change it's
> status to open, the priority to P3 and target it for 9 (i.e. Fix
> Version = 9).
> 
> Regards,
> Volker
> 
> 
> Andrew.
> 
> 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]