Re: RFR(M): 8172970: TESTBUG: need test coverage for the JVMTI functions allowed in the start phase

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

On 5/2/17 12:40 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:

Hi Dan,

Thank you a lot for the comments!
All are nice catches.
I have to admit I've done too many typos in new test.
Some of them is a result of the 'last minute' changes.

The updated webrev is:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2017/hotspot/8172970-start-phase.4/

make/test/JtregNative.gmk
    No comments.

test/serviceability/jvmti/StartPhase/AllowedFunctions/AllowedFunctions.java
    No comments.

test/serviceability/jvmti/StartPhase/AllowedFunctions/libAllowedFunctions.c
    L126:         printf(" class: \'%s\'\n", name);
    L137:         printf("    Class source file name: \'%s\'\n", name);
        You don't need to escape the single-quotes with backslash here.

Thumbs up!

Dan

Thanks,
Serguei


On 5/2/17 11:09, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:

> New webrev version is:

> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2017/hotspot/8172970-start-phase.3/

make/test/JtregNative.gmk
    No comments.

test/serviceability/jvmti/StartPhase/AllowedFunctions/AllowedFunctions.java L27: * @summary Verify the functions that allowed to operate in the start phase

        Typo: 'that allowed' -> 'that are allowed'

    L28:  * with and without can_generate_early_vmstart capability
        Please add '.' to the end.

test/serviceability/jvmti/StartPhase/AllowedFunctions/libAllowedFunctions.c

    L27: #include <stdint.h>
        Should this include be in "alpha" order?

L115: printf(" ## Error: unexpected class status: 0x%02x\n", status);

    L117:     printf("    Class status: 0x%08x\n", status);
        Why the different format specifications? "02x" versus "08x"?

    L126:         printf(" class: %s\n", name);
    L137:         printf("    Class source file name: %s\n", name);
        Please consider adding single-quotes around the %s.

    L175:     check_jvmti_error(jvmti, "GetClassMethods", err);
        Typo: "GetClassMethods" -> "GetClassFields"

L229: err = (*jvmti)->IsMethodObsolete(jvmti, method, & is_obsolete);

        Please delete space after '&'.

    L265:     check_jvmti_error(jvmti, "GetMethodModifiers", err);
        Typo: "GetMethodModifiers" -> "GetFieldModifiers"

    L301:     if (methods != NULL) {
        Typo: 'methods' -> 'fields'

        This one can result in a memory leak.

    L308:     jvmtiError err;
    L322:     jvmtiError err;
        'err' is unused. Please delete it.

    L396:     check_jvmti_error(jvmti, "AddCapabilites", err);
         Other errors in here include "## Agent_Initialize: "; why not
         this one?

    L398:     size = (jint)sizeof(callbacks);
    L399:     memset(&callbacks, 0, sizeof(callbacks));

Perhaps use 'size' instead of 'sizeof(callbacks)' since you have it.

You have a nice list of functions in the bug report.
You might want to include the list of functions that
are NOT covered by this test along with a brief comment
about why that is okay.

Dan


On 5/2/17 3:02 AM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:

PING:
 I've got a thumbs up from David Holmes.
 One more review is needed for this jdk 10 test enhancement.

Thanks!
Serguei



On 4/28/17 17:13, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:

Hi David,


On 4/28/17 10:34, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:

Hi David,


On 4/28/17 04:42, David Holmes wrote:

Hi Serguei,

On 28/04/2017 6:07 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:

The updated webrev is:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2017/hotspot/8172970-start-phase.2/

Thanks for the updates (the issue with long is that on win64 it is only 32-bit while void* is 64-bit).

Ok, thanks.
Than you are right, using long on win64 is not compatible.

I prefer to see fast-fail rather than potentially triggering cascading failures (check_jvmti_error could even call exit() I think). But let's see what others think - it's only a preference not a necessity.

Ok, I'll consider call exit() as it would keep it simple.

New webrev version is:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2017/hotspot/8172970-start-phase.3/

Thanks,
Serguei

Thanks,
Serguei

Thanks,
David

I've re-arranged a little bit code in the ClassPrepare callback and the

function test_class_functions().

Thanks,
Serguei


On 4/28/17 00:47, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:

Hi David,

Thank you for looking at the test!


On 4/27/17 23:11, David Holmes wrote:

Hi Serguei,

On 28/04/2017 3:14 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:

Please, review the jdk 10 fix for the test enhancement:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172970


Webrev:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2017/hotspot/8172970-start-phase.1/

Sorry but I can't quite figure out exactly what this test is doing.

What is the overall call structure here?

This is to make sure the functions allowed in the start and live
phases work Ok.
As the list of functions is pretty big the test does sanity checks
that the functions do not crash nor return errors.

I was expecting to see a difference between things that can be called at early-start and those that can not - or are these all expected to

work okay in either case?

All these functions are expected to work okay in both cases.
Of course, the main concern is the early start.
But we have never had such coverage in the past so that the normal
start phase needs to be covered too.

A few comments:

 44 #define TranslateError(err) "JVMTI error"

I don't see the point of the above.

Good catch - removed.

It is a left over from another test that I used as initial template.

---

99 static long get_thread_local(jvmtiEnv *jvmti, jthread thread) {

The thread local functions use "long" as the datatype but that will only be 32-bit on 64-bit Windows. I think you need to use intptr_t

for complete portability.

The type long has the same format as the type void* which has to be

portable even on win-32.
But maybe I'm missing something.
Anyway, I've replaced it with the intptr_t.

---

 277     printf("    Filed declaring");

typo: filed -> field

Good catch - fixed.

---

All your little wrapper functions make the JVMTI call and then call

check_jvmti_error - but all that does is record if it passed or

failed. If it failed you still continue with the next operation even

if it relies on the success of the first one eg:

 378         set_thread_local(jvmti, thread, exp_val);
 379         act_val = get_thread_local(jvmti, cur_thread);

and the sequences in print_method_info:

228 err = (*jvmti)->IsMethodNative(jvmti, method, &is_native);

 229     check_jvmti_error(jvmti, "IsMethodNative", err);
 230     printf("    Method is native: %d\n", is_native);
 231
 232     if (is_native == JNI_FALSE) {

233 err = (*jvmti)->GetMaxLocals(jvmti, method, &locals_max);

The call at #233 may not be valid because the method actually is
native but the IsMethodNative call failed for some reason.

It is intentional. I have done it as a last cleanup.

The point is to simplify code by skipping all the extra checks if it

does not lead to any fatal errors.

The most important in such a case is that the static variable result

is set to FAILED.
It will cause the test to fail.

Then there is no point to analyze the printed results if a JVMTI error

reported before.

If you insist, I will add back all the extra check to make sure all

printed output is valid.


Thanks,
Serguei

Thanks,
David
-----

Summary:

The task was to provide a test coverage for the JVMTI functions

allowed during the start phase.
  It includes both enabling and disabling the
can_generate_early_vmstart
capability.

Testing the JVMTI functions allowed in any case has not been targeted

by this fix.

Testing:
  New test is passed.


Thanks,
Serguei