Paul,
The transformation you suggest is equivalent, but I reluctant to apply
it. IMO, it doesn't add much value and current version is easier to
read. Considering the current level of complexity in
VA.isMemberAccessible I don't want to increase it even further :-)
Best regards,
Vladimir Ivanov
PS: thanks for looking into the fix.
On 1/31/14 1:31 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:58 AM, Vladimir Ivanov <vladimir.x.iva...@oracle.com>
wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8033278/webrev.00/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033278
The fix for 8032585 [1] introduced a regression: in some cases access check on
a reference class is omitted.
The fix is to ensure that access check on a reference class is always performed.
104 case PROTECTED:
105 if ((allowedModes & PROTECTED_OR_PACKAGE_ALLOWED) != 0 &&
106 isSamePackage(defc, lookupClass))
107 return true;
108 if ((allowedModes & PROTECTED) == 0)
109 return false;
110 if ((mods & STATIC) != 0 &&
111 !isRelatedClass(refc, lookupClass))
112 return false;
113 if ((allowedModes & PROTECTED) != 0 &&
114 isSuperClass(defc, lookupClass))
115 return true;
116 return false;
Can lines 113 to 116 be reduced to:
return isSuperClass(defc, lookupClass));
?
The shuffling of the code looks correct (and simpler), but i am fuzzy on the
nuances of access control.
Paul.
Testing: regression test, jdk/test/java/lang/invoke/,
jdk/test/java/util/stream, vm.defmeth.testlist, vm.mlvm.testlist, nashorn (unit
tests, octane), groovy
Thanks!
Best regards,
Vladimir Ivanov
[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8032585/webrev.00/
