Hi David, > I'm a bit unclear on the problem being fixed - do I take it that Oracle JDK binaries are not built as DSO's and so do not experience this problem? Is there a reasonable way to test this (is it covered by any existing tests) ?
You cannot check this issue with Oracle JDK because it is not DSO (PIE). This fix is only confirmed with DSO (PIE) binaries. So I did not make testcase for this issue. You have to check with DSO build as below: ``` $ bash configure --with-native-debug-symbols=internal --enable-debug --disable-warnings-as-errors --disable-hotspot-gtest --with-extra-cflags=-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 --with-extra-cxxflags=-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 --with-extra-ldflags=-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld $ make images ``` Thanks, Yasumasa 2017-02-13 9:06 GMT+09:00 David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com>: > Hi Volker, > > On 10/02/2017 11:21 PM, Volker Simonis wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/02/17 03:13, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: >>> >>>> We can calculate start address of executable (java command) through >>>> entry >>>> point. >>>> I updated webrev: >>>> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8173941/webrev.01/ >>>> >>>> This patch can ignore page size. >>>> >>> >>> Excellent. I think this is safe for JDK 9, but there may be some >>> argument about whether we'll be able to get it in now. I'm happy to >>> approve it, but I guess we should appeal to hotspot-dev and see what >>> people say. >>> >>> >> I haven't looked at this change in full detail until now so this is >> not a review. But the change looks reasonable and non-intrusive so I >> strongly support its integration into jdk9. >> > > I don't know this code or the issue being addressed, but I have run this > through your JPRT testing just to make sure there are no surprises. > > I'm a bit unclear on the problem being fixed - do I take it that Oracle > JDK binaries are not built as DSO's and so do not experience this problem? > Is there a reasonable way to test this (is it covered by any existing > tests) ? > > Thanks, > David > ----- > > > It also doesn't touch the libjvm.so which means it can't introduce any >> harm. Second, it's good to see that somebody cares for the SA tools. >> It would be nice if somebody from the SA team could have a look at >> this and sponsor it. >> >> @Andrew: as this bug is assigned to you, I'd suggest to change it's >> status to open, the priority to P3 and target it for 9 (i.e. Fix >> Version = 9). >> >> Regards, >> Volker >> >> >> Andrew. >>> >>>
