Thanks Lois!

I'll add the two ResourceMarks before the changes get pushed.

Harold

On 5/22/2020 11:07 AM, Lois Foltan wrote:
On 5/21/2020 2:33 PM, Harold Seigel wrote:
Hi David,

Thanks for looking at this!  Please review this new webrev:

   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hseigel/webrev.01/webrev/

Hi Harold,

I think this webrev looks good!  A couple of minor comments:

- oops/instanceKlass.cpp:
  line #236, do you need a ResourceMark here? I noticed there is one above at line #229 for the log_trace call that uses external_name().

- prims/jvmtiRedefineClasses.cpp:
  line #878, I think you need a ResourceMark for this method as well if you invoke the external_name for the log_trace calls and for NEW_RESOURCE_ARRAY_RETURN_NULL()?

Tests look good.

Thanks,
Lois


This webrev contains the following significant changes:

1. The format/indentation issues in classFileParser.cpp were fixed.
2. Unneeded checks in InstanceKlass::has_as_permitted_subclass() were
   removed and the TRAPS parameter was removed.
3. The changes to klassVtable.* and method.* were reverted. Those
   changes were from when sealed classes were marked as final, and are
   no longer valid.
4. Method getPermittedSubclasses() in Class.java was renamed to
   permittedSubclasses() and its implementation was changed.
5. Variables and methods for 'asm' were renamed from
   'permittedSubtypes' to 'permittedSubclasses'.
6. Classes for sealed classes tests were changed to start with capital
   letters.
7. Changes to langtools tests were removed from this webrev. They are
   covered by the javac webrev (JDK-8244556).
8. The CSR's for JVMTI, JDWP, and JDI are in progress.

Please also see comments inline.


On 5/19/2020 1:26 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Harold,

Adding serviceability-dev for the serviceability related changes.

Nit: "VM support for sealed classes"

This RFR covers the VM, core-libs, serviceability and even some langtools tests. AFAICS only the javac changes are not included here so when and where will they be reviewed and under what bug id? Ideally there will be a single JBS issue for "Implementation of JEP 360: Sealed types". It's okay to break up the RFRs across different areas, but it should be done under one bug id.
The javac changes are being reviewed as bug JDK-8227406.  We understand the need to do the reviews under one bug.

Overall this looks good. I've looked at all files and mainly have some style nits in various places. But there are some more significant items below.

On 14/05/2020 7:09 am, Harold Seigel wrote:
Hi,

Please review this patch for JVM and Core-libs support for the JEP 360 Sealed Classes preview feature.  Code changes include the following:

  * Processing of the new PermittedSubclasses attribute to enforce that
    a class or interface, whose super is a sealed class or interface,
    must be listed in the super's PermittedSubclasses attribute.
  * Disallow redefinition of a sealed class or interface if its
    redefinition would change its PermittedSubclasses attribute.
  * Support API's to determine if a class or interface is sealed and, if
    it's sealed, return a list of its permitted subclasses.
  * asm support for the PermittedSubclasses attribute

I assume Remi is providing the upstream support in ASM? :) But also see below ...


Open Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vromero/8225056/webrev.00/index.html

make/data/jdwp/jdwp.spec

There needs to be a sub-task and associated CSR request for this JDWP spec update. I couldn't see this covered anywhere.

---

src/hotspot/share/classfile/classFileParser.cpp

3215 u2 ClassFileParser::parse_classfile_permitted_subclasses_attribute(const ClassFileStream* const cfs,
3216 const u1* const permitted_subclasses_attribute_start,
3217 TRAPS) {

Indention on L3216/17 needs fixing after the copy'n'edit.

3515   return _major_version == JVM_CLASSFILE_MAJOR_VERSION &&
3516              _minor_version == JAVA_PREVIEW_MINOR_VERSION &&
3517              Arguments::enable_preview();

Too much indentation on L3516/17

3790                 // Check for PermittedSubclasses tag

That comment (copied from my nestmates code :) is in the wrong place. It needs to be before

3788             if (tag == vmSymbols::tag_permitted_subclasses()) {


Minor nit: I would suggest checking parsed_permitted_subclasses_attribute before checking ACC_FINAL.

3876   if (parsed_permitted_subclasses_attribute) {
3877     const u2 num_of_subclasses = parse_classfile_permitted_subclasses_attribute(
3878                                    cfs,
3879 permitted_subclasses_attribute_start,
3880                                    CHECK);

Although it looks odd the preceding, similarly shaped, sections all indent to the same absolute position. Can you make L3878/78/80 match please.

3882       guarantee_property(
3883         permitted_subclasses_attribute_length ==
3884           sizeof(num_of_subclasses) + sizeof(u2) * num_of_subclasses, 3885         "Wrong PermittedSubclasses attribute length in class file %s", CHECK);

Nits: please reformat as:

3882       guarantee_property(
3883         permitted_subclasses_attribute_length == sizeof(num_of_subclasses) + sizeof(u2) * num_of_subclasses, 3885         "Wrong PermittedSubclasses attribute length in class file %s", CHECK);

It would also look slightly better if you shortened the name of the num_of_subclasses variable.
All of the above classFileParser.cpp changes were done.

---

src/hotspot/share/classfile/classFileParser.hpp

+   u2 parse_classfile_permitted_subclasses_attribute(const ClassFileStream* const cfs, +                                             const u1* const permitted_subclasses_attribute_start,
+                                             TRAPS);

Please fix indentation after copy'n'edit.
Done.

---

src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.cpp

 247   if (classloader1 != classloader2) {

I'm not clear what rule this is verifying. The same module check follows this one. The rule is that the subclass must be accessible to the superclass implying:
1. same named module (regardless of class access modifiers); or
2. (implicitly in un-named module) same package if subclass not public; or
3. public subclass

Having the same classloader implies same package, but that alone doesn't address 2 or 3. So this doesn't conform to proposed JVMS rules.
This was discussed as part of the CSR and hopefully clarified.



 264     if (_constants->tag_at(cp_index).is_klass()) {
 265       Klass* k2 = _constants->klass_at(cp_index, CHECK_false);

You've copied this code from the nestmember checks but your changes don't quite make sense to me. If we have already checked is_klass() then klass_at() cannot lead to any exceptions.

 272       if (name == k->name()) {
 273         log_trace(class, sealed)("- Found it at permitted_subclasses[%d] => cp[%d]", i, cp_index);
 274         return true;

I was wondering why you don't resolve the cp entry when you find the name matches, as we do for nest members, but realized that unlike the nest membership check, which can happen many times for a given class, this permitted subclass check can only happen once per class. As you don't actually resolve here, and given that the earlier check cannot throw exceptions, it follows that the entire method never results in any exceptions and so callers should not be using the CHECK macro.

The comparison of class loaders was removed because checking that the two classes are in the same module ensures that they have the same class loader.

The traps parameter was removed.  The CHECK macro was replaced with THREAD.


---

src/hotspot/share/oops/method.cpp

I don't understand how knowing the class is sealed allows you to infer that a non-final method is actually final ??
This change was removed.  See item #3 at the beginning of this email.

---

 src/hotspot/share/prims/jvm.cpp

It would be simpler (and cheaper) if the Java side of this ensures it doesn't call into the VM with an array or primitive class.
Done.

---

 src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmti.xml

The JVM TI spec changes also need to be covered by a CSR request.

---

src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiRedefineClasses.cpp

We should file a RFE to refactor the logic that checks that an attribute consisting of a list of classes has not changed. :)
Serguei filed the RFE.

Aside: I spotted a bug in the nest member code (missing NULL check!) thanks to your change :)

---

src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Class.java

There needs to be a CSR request for these changes.
The CSR is JDK-8244556.

+      * Returns an array containing {@code ClassDesc} objects representing all the +      * permitted subclasses of this {@linkplain Class} if it is sealed. Returns an empty array if this
+      * {@linkplain Class} is not sealed.

should add "or this class represents an array or primitive type" (using the standard wording for such cases).
Discussed off-line and was decided that this text isn't needed.

+      * @throws IllegalArgumentException if a class descriptor is not in the correct format

IllegalArgumentException is not an appropriate exception to use as this method takes no arguments. If the class descriptor is not valid and it comes from the VM then I think we have a problem with how the VM validates class descriptors. Any IAE from ClassDesc.of should be caught and converted to a more suitable exception type - preferably InternalError if the VM should always return valid strings.
Done.

+     public ClassDesc[] getPermittedSubclasses() {

As mentioned for jvm.cpp this Java code should do the isArray() and isPrimitive() check before calling the VM.
Done.

+         String[] descriptors = getPermittedSubclasses0();

Nit: what you get from the VM are not descriptors, just name strings in internal form. This wouldn't really matter except it then looks strange to call ClassDesc.of(...) instead of ClassDesc.ofDescriptor(...).
We tried using ClassDesc.ofDescriptor() but encountered problems. The variable 'descriptors' was renamed 'subclassNames'.

+         if (descriptors == null

The VM never returns null.
The check was removed.

+         return getPermittedSubclasses().length != 0;

It's grossly inefficient to create the ClassDesc array and then throw it away IMO. The result should be cached either in a field of Class or in the ReflectionData of the class.
Done.

---

src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/org/objectweb/asm/ClassReader.java

!         // - The offset of the PermittedSubclasses attribute, or 0
          int permittedSubtypesOffset = 0;

Obviously ASM already has some prelim support for sealed classes, but now that the attribute has been renamed that should also flow through to the ASM code ie the variable, not just the comment.

Ditto for ClassWriter.java and its fields.
Done.

---

src/java.base/share/native/libjava/Class.c

      {"isRecord0",            "()Z",         (void *)&JVM_IsRecord},
+     {"getPermittedSubclasses0", "()[" STR,    (void *)&JVM_GetPermittedSubclasses},

please align (void

Done.
---

src/java.instrument/share/classes/java/lang/instrument/Instrumentation.java
src/jdk.jdi/share/classes/com/sun/jdi/VirtualMachine.java

There needs to be a CSR for these changes too.

---

test/langtools/tools/javac/processing/model/TestSourceVersion.java

!                    // Assume "record" and "sealed" will be restricted keywords.
!                    "record", "sealed");

What about the non-sealed keyword defined in the JEP?
'non-sealed' is a keyword but not a restricted keyword.  So, it should not be in the list.

---

In the tests you don't need to explicitly include sun.hotspot.WhiteBox$WhiteBoxPermission on the ClassFileInstaller invocation. (previous RFE's have been removing existing occurrences after the CFI was fixed to handle it internally).
Done.

Please ensure all new tests have an @bug 8225056 (or whatever the actual JBS issue will be)
Done.

All test classes (and thus files) should be named in camel-case i.e. C1 not c1, C2 not c2, SuperClass not superClass etc.
Done.


test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/modules/sealedP1/superClass.jcod
test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/sealedClasses/Pkg/sealedInterface.jcod

Please add comments clarifying why these must be jcod files.

Done.

Thanks!  Harold


---

That's it from me.

Thanks,
David
-----



JBS bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8225056

Java Language Spec changes: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep360/jep360-20200513/specs/sealed-classes-jls.html

JVM Spec changes: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep360/jep360-20200513/specs/sealed-classes-jvms.html

JEP 360: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8227043

JVM CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242578

Changes to javac and other language tools will be reviewed separately.

Thanks, Harold



Reply via email to