Hi Alan and Henry,

Thank you for reviewing my email! Henry's observation matches mine, the shared 
common code for all platforms in checkArg 
(src/java.base/share/native/libjli/args.c) can potentially leave the 
firstAppArgIndex static set to -1, if all passed command line arguments are 
prefixed with a dash. Later on the arguments are validated, however we might 
crash before then on Windows because of the negative index access. In this 
case, the customer command was valid (modules usage) and the program runs 
successfully.

I created a webrev here for the change, including a new test in Arrrghs.java:

https://grcevski.github.io/JDK-8234076/webrev/

I copied the test validation and assertion style of other code inside the test 
class.

Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions.

Thanks again!

-----Original Message-----
From: Henry Jen <henry....@oracle.com> 
Sent: December 2, 2019 12:26 PM
To: Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com>
Cc: Nikola Grcevski <nikola.grcev...@microsoft.com>; 
core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: JDK-8234076 bug fix candidate

The fix looks reasonable to me, basically, if the command argument format is 
not legal, it’s possible we won’t find the main class when doing argument file 
expansion, and the index is -1 which could cause crash on Windows platform for 
the wildcard processing.

I think we should add a test case for this, probably in 
test/jdk/tools/launcher/Arrrghs.java.

As I understand it, the argument validation is done in a later stage after 
calling JLI_Launch.

Cheers,
Henry


> On Dec 2, 2019, at 2:12 AM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> On 20/11/2019 19:42, Nikola Grcevski wrote:
>> :
>> 
>> Please let me know if this approach is acceptable for the current bug report 
>> and I'll make a webrev and include appropriate launcher tests. I was 
>> thinking the tests should do extra validation on the output from 
>> _JAVA_LAUNCHER_DEBUG on Windows.
>> 
> I think you're in the right area but I would have expected the arg index to 0 
> here. Henry Jen (cc'ed) might have some comments on this.
> 
> -Alan

Reply via email to