On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:28:23 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore <mcimadam...@openjdk.org>
wrote:
>> This PR adds a new JDK tool, called `jnativescan`, that can be used to find
>> code that accesses native functionality. Currently this includes `native`
>> method declarations, and methods marked with `@Restricted`.
>>
>> The tool accepts a list of class path and module path entries through
>> `--class-path` and `--module-path`, and a set of root modules through
>> `--add-modules`, as well as an optional target release with `--release`.
>>
>> The default mode is for the tool to report all uses of `@Restricted`
>> methods, and `native` method declaration in a tree-like structure:
>>
>>
>> app.jar (ALL-UNNAMED):
>> main.Main:
>> main.Main::main(String[])void references restricted methods:
>> java.lang.foreign.MemorySegment::reinterpret(long)MemorySegment
>> main.Main::m()void is a native method declaration
>>
>>
>> The `--print-native-access` option can be used print out all the module
>> names of modules doing native access in a comma separated list. For class
>> path code, this will print out `ALL-UNNAMED`.
>>
>> Testing:
>> - `langtools_jnativescan` tests.
>> - Running the tool over jextract's libclang bindings, which use the FFM API,
>> and thus has a lot of references to `@Restricted` methods.
>> - tier 1-3
>
> src/jdk.jdeps/share/classes/com/sun/tools/jnativescan/RestrictedMethodFinder.java
> line 105:
>
>> 103: return switch (method) {
>> 104: case MethodRefEntry mre ->
>> 105: isRestrictedMethod(mre.owner().asSymbol(),
>> mre.name().stringValue(), mre.typeSymbol());
>
> Do we really need these two identical calls to `isRestrictedMethod` ? Note
> that both `MethodRefEntry` and `InterfaceMethodEntry` are subclasses of
> `MemberRefEntry`, so perhaps the other `isRestrictedMethod` can just take
> `MemberRefEntry`?
>
> Or maybe we can have different factories in `MethodRef` one that takes
> `InterfaceMethodEntry` and another that takes `MemberRefEntry`.
I can do that, but I think this will always be a bit awkward since these types
don't have a common super type that exposes the needed information.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19774#discussion_r1646571620
