Constructor::newInstance is a caller-sensitive method that performs the
security check when the caller is not the same class loader as implClass’s
class loader or not its ancestor.
In this case the caller class is ServerSocket and its class loader is the
bootstrap class loader is privileged (an
On 02/09/16 15:02, Langer, Christoph wrote:
Hi,
can you please review and approve a tiny and straightforward fix for AIX
only in JDK8.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165320
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8165320.8udev/
This looks fine. Reviewed.
-Chr
That's great, thanks.
I'll push on Monday.
Best regards
Christoph
From: Mark Sheppard [mailto:mark.shepp...@oracle.com]
Sent: Freitag, 2. September 2016 16:50
To: Langer, Christoph ; net-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Ping: RFR(S): 8163181: Further improvements for Unix
NetworkInterface nati
builds and regression tests appear to be OK with the proposed changes.
regards
Mark
On 02/09/2016 12:41, Mark Sheppard wrote:
have had a look through the changes twice, and they look fine ... i'll
apply the patch and run a regression build to confirm
the moving of int flags on 919 to a con
Hi,
can you please review and approve a tiny and straightforward fix for AIX only
in JDK8.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165320
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8165320.8udev/
When integrating 8160174, I oversaw 2 minor places where JVM_Socket should be
used
Hi Many,
Are you sure the implementation class passed to
JavaNetSocketAccess.newSocketImpl(Class implClass)
is never going to be loaded by a class loader other than bootstrap
classloader (the loader of the caller of
implClass.getDeclaredConstructor()) and that no unprivileged code will
be on
have had a look through the changes twice, and they look fine ... i'll
apply the patch and run a regression build to confirm
the moving of int flags on 919 to a conditional block, I expect to
cause a strict compile error in my solaris env, so need to check that
regards
Mark
On 02/09/2016
Vyom,
> thanks for review, I did consider to use a monotonically increasing
> clock like "clock_gettime" but existing nearby code("NET_Timeout")
> uses "gettimeofday" so i choose to be consistent with the existing
> code.
OK. The fix looks good for me.
-Dmitry
On 2016-09-02 06:39, Vyom Tewa
Apologies Christoph, this dropped off my list and I forgot to get back to it.
> On 2 Sep 2016, at 08:22, Langer, Christoph wrote:
>
> Hi (Mark or Chris?),
>
> as this RFR is outstanding for quite a while and it merely is a minor change
> which only cleans up coding, would you mind to review i
Hi (Mark or Chris?),
as this RFR is outstanding for quite a while and it merely is a minor change
which only cleans up coding, would you mind to review it that I can get it off
my list?
The only major thing probably is, that calls to getMacAddress don't need a
socket anymore and sockets are on
10 matches
Mail list logo
