Looks good to me! Thanks, /peter
> On 26 Nov 2014, at 14:53, KEVIN WALLS <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ...and an update to the webrev in the same place that also checks the SELinux > deny_ptrace flag, another reason you can get a permission denied error and > fail the test. > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kevinw/8039995/webrev.01/ > > Thanks > Kevin > > > On 20/11/2014 18:38, KEVIN WALLS wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm resurrecting this thread to revisit this testcase, the one that fails if >> not in an environment where an SA attach is permitted (which is linux >> systems with 1 in /proc/sys/kernel/yama/ptrace_scope, and mac systems as a >> non-root user). >> >> There are times when we want to check if an SA attach is likely to work, so >> in the following webrev I've put that in the testlibrary. >> >> In doing this I now realise that heap dumping with jmap/sa is broken, as >> reported in: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044416 >> >> I won't remove the @ignore in this change, but it would make sense to me to >> do the fix below, including backporting to places where jmap -F still works. >> >> webrev >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kevinw/8039995/webrev.01/ >> >> bug >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8039995 >> >> Thanks >> Kevin >> >> >> >> >> On 24/05/2014 19:25, Kevin Walls wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Peter, and thanks Dmitry - >>> >>> So another thread on this has started about why such a test runs in an >>> environment that can't expected to attach to its own processes anyway: >>> seems that some test systems permit that, and some run as a user that can't >>> necessarily expect to have that ability. >>> >>> (Dmitry I'm not sure about exiting with that error value? If that's >>> something people are meant to know about I have missed it. But the test >>> would fail if jmap didn't create the heap dump file, i.e. if it fails but >>> doesn't exit with the right code.) >>> >>> For the moment I'll wait on that other information for whether this needs >>> to be fixed in the test... >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Kevin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 23/05/14 12:00, Peter Allwin wrote: >>>> Looks good to me! >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for looking at this Kevin, >>>> /peter >>>> >>>> On 20 May 2014, at 13:14, Kevin Walls <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi - any comments? 8-) >>>>> >>>>> On 12/05/14 16:02, Kevin Walls wrote >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to get a review of this test change. It assumed that jmap >>>>>> would have permission to run on a process that the test itself created, >>>>>> but this is not necessarily the case. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here I'm considering it OK to skip (pass) the test where jmap fails to >>>>>> attach. The test itself was not platform-specific and as long as we >>>>>> have other platforms where jmap step will work, we are testing for this >>>>>> problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> bug: >>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8039995 >>>>>> >>>>>> webrev: >>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kevinw/8039995/webrev.00/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Kevin >>> >> >
