Hi Sergey, thanks for your help, but I've just pushed the fix now.
@Thomas: sorry, I really apologize, but I've just realized that I've forgot to add you as a Reviewer :( I'll promise to look more carefully next time. Regards, Volker On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 6:01 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com <serguei.spit...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Ralf, > > I think, you have to consider it reviewed. > Sorry, I was not clear no new webrev is needed. > > Do you need a sponsor for the push? > > Thanks, > Serguei > > > > On 7/24/18 06:32, Schmelter, Ralf wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> here is the update webref with the fixed copyright: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8205608.v5/ >> >> Best regards, >> Ralf >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: serguei.spit...@oracle.com [mailto:serguei.spit...@oracle.com] >> Sent: Freitag, 20. Juli 2018 23:04 >> To: Chris Plummer <chris.plum...@oracle.com>; Schmelter, Ralf >> <ralf.schmel...@sap.com>; serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net; Stuefe, >> Thomas <thomas.stu...@sap.com> >> Subject: Re: RFR (S) 8205608: Fix 'frames()' in ThreadReferenceImpl.c to >> prevent quadratic runtime behavior >> >> On 7/20/18 13:44, Chris Plummer wrote: >>> >>> On 7/20/18 1:40 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ralf, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/20/18 07:28, Schmelter, Ralf wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sergue, >>>>> >>>>> I’ve updated the webref: >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8205608.v4/ >>>> >>>> The copyright year in ThreadReferenceImpl.c still has to be 2018, not >>>> 2008. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8205608.v4/test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/Frames2Test.java.html >>>> >>>> >>>> 72 if (newDepth == -1_000) { >>>> 73 // Pop some frames so there is room on the stack >>>> for the >>>> 74 // call (including println()). >>>> 75 notifyRecursionEnded(); >>>> 76 } >>>> >>>> I have a concern on potential issue mentioned in the comment above. >>>> Should a StackOverflowError be expected here? >>>> >>>> 79 } catch (StackOverflowError e) { >>>> 80 // Use negative depth to indicate the recursion has >>>> ended. >>>> 81 return -1; >>>> 82 } >>>> >>>> What is going to happen if the StackOverflowError was really caught >>>> above? >>> >>> The SOE is really caught in the above code. I returns -1, and starts >>> the unwinding of the stack. After 1000 frames have been popped via >>> returns, notifyRecursionEnded() will be called. The pops are so >>> notifyRecursionEnded() can be called without worry of another SOE. >> >> Got it, thanks Chris. >> >> So, I'm Okay with the fix assuming the copyright year is fixed. >> >> Thanks, >> Serguei > >
