David, The fix looks good to me.
PS: This code has lots of formatting nits like missed spaces.
It's clearly out of scope of this fix, but it might be worth to
launch a second webrev.
-Dmitry
On 15.10.2018 8:12, David Holmes wrote:
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211909
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8211909/webrev/
>
> The crash occurs when trying to access a thread that was returned as
> part of JVM TI GetThreadGroupChildren. The problem is that the JVM TI
> code tries to use the Threads_lock to ensure atomic access to the
> ThreadGroup's threads and child groups:
>
> { // Cannot allow thread or group counts to change.
> MutexLocker mu(Threads_lock);
>
> but the Threads_lock does not control concurrency in the Java code that
> can cause threads to be added and removed, so we do not get a stable
> snapshot of the thread array and its length, and contents. To get a
> stable snapshot we have to use the same synchronization mechanism as
> used by the Java code: lock the monitor of the ThreadGroup instance.
>
> Two other pointless acquisitions of the Threads_lock, in GetThreadInfo
> and GetThreadGroupInfo, were also removed. These functions could report
> an inconsistent snapshot of the Thread or ThreadGroup state, if the
> mutable state is mutated concurrently. Again we could acquire the
> object's monitor to prevent this but it is unclear that there is any
> real benefit in doing so - after all the thread/group information could
> change immediately after it has been read anyway. So here I just delete
> the Threads_lock usage.
>
> Testing: mach5 tier 1-3
> JVM TI tests (serviceability/jvmti vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/)
>
> A regression test may be possible if we call GetThreadGroupChildren in a
> loop, whilst threads add and remove themselves from the group
> concurrently. But it is awkward to write.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> Thanks,
> David
--
Dmitry Samersoff
http://devnull.samersoff.net
* There will come soft rains ...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
