On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 20:15:39 GMT, Phil Race <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This fix updates DataBuffer subclasses to actually adhere to their stated >> specifications by rejecting certain invalid parameters for constructors and >> getters and setters. >> A new egression test for each of the constructor and getter/setter cases is >> supplied. >> >> No existing regression tests fail with this change, and standard demos work. >> >> Problems caused by these changes are most likely to occur if the client has >> a bug such that >> - a client uses the constructors that accept an array and then supplies a >> "size" that is greater than the array. >> - a client uses the constructors that accept an array and then supplies a >> "size" that is less than the array and then uses getter/setters that are >> within the array but outside the range specified by size. >> >> Since very few clients (and just one case in the JDK that I found) even use >> these array constructors the changes are unlikely to make a difference to >> clients. >> >> The CSR is ready for review https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8378116 >> >> --------- >> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the >> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). > > Phil Race has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > 8377568 > Then the validation of `size`, `numBanks`, `offset` and `offsets` must be in > the `DataBuffer` class _“to ensure any subclasses are validated”_. Otherwise, > other subclasses could create instance of `DataBuffer` that break the > assumptions. For example, I can create a data buffer with negative size and > an invalid data type. I just pushed a change which now checks these in DataBuffer It might be easiest to look at the incremental commit to review what changed. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29766#issuecomment-4270494676
