> This PR proposes the introduction of **guarding** of the use of
> `DirectBuffer::address` within the JDK. With the introduction of the Foreign
> Function and Memory access, it is possible to derive Buffer instances that
> are backed by native memory that, in turn, can be closed asynchronously by
> the user (and not only via a `Cleaner` when there is no other reference to
> the `Buffer` object). If another thread is invoking `MemorySession::close`
> while a thread is doing work using raw addresses, the outcome is undefined.
> This means the JVM might crash or even worse, silent modification of
> unrelated memory might occur.
>
> Design choices in this PR:
>
> There is already a method `MemorySession::whileAlive` that takes a runnable
> and that will perform the provided action while acquiring the underlying`
> MemorySession` (if any). However, using this method entailed relatively large
> changes while converting larger/nested code segments into lambdas. This would
> also risk introducing lambda capturing. So, instead, a try-with-resources
> friendly access method was added. This made is more easy to add guarding and
> did not risk lambda capturing. Also, introducing lambdas in certain
> fundamental JDK classes might incur bootstrap problems.
>
> The aforementioned TwR is using a "session acquisition" that is not used
> explicitly in the try block itself. This raises a warning that is suppressed
> using `@SuppressWarnings("try")`. In the future, we might be able to remove
> these suppressions by using the reserved variable name `_`. Another
> alternative was evaluated where a non-autocloseable resource was used.
> However, it became relatively complicated to guarantee that the session was
> always released and, at the same time, the existing 'final` block was always
> executed properly (as they both might throw exceptions). In the end, the
> proposed solution was much simpler and robust despite requiring a
> non-referenced TwR variable.
>
> In some cases, where is is guaranteed that the backing memory session is
> non-closeable, we do not have to guard the use of `DirectBuffer::address`.
> ~~These cases have been documented in the code.~~
>
> On some occasions, a plurality of acquisitions are made. This would never
> lead to deadlocks as acquisitions are fundamentally concurrent counters and
> not resources that only one thread can "own".
>
> I have added comments (and not javadocs) before the declaration of the
> non-public-api `DirectBuffer::address` method, that the use of the returned
> address needs to be guarded. It can be discussed if this is preferable or not.
>
> This PR spawns several areas of responsibility and so, I expect more than one
> reviewer before promoting the PR.
Per Minborg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
Reformat and fix comment
-------------
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11260/files
- new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11260/files/0546b23b..30aff118
Webrevs:
- full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=11260&range=13
- incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=11260&range=12-13
Stats: 26 lines in 3 files changed: 13 ins; 2 del; 11 mod
Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11260.diff
Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/11260/head:pull/11260
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11260
