On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:00:37 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address >> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8324668? >> >> This change proposes to fix the issue in jdwp where when launching a child >> process (for the `launch=<cmd>` option), it iterates over an extremely large >> number of file descriptors to close each one of those. Details about the >> issue and the proposed fixed are added in a subsequent comment in this PR >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/17588#issuecomment-1912256075. tier1, >> tier2 and tier3 testing is currently in progress with this change. > > Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with three additional > commits since the last revision: > > - add a log message to help debuggability > - improve code comments > - David's review - use standard isdigit instead of custom isAsciiDigit Again, the changes make the code better already, I just want to make sure take this opportunity to polish this code really well... src/jdk.jdwp.agent/unix/native/libjdwp/exec_md.c line 108: > 106: if (isdigit(dirp->d_name[0]) && > 107: (fd = strtol(dirp->d_name, NULL, 10)) >= from_fd) { > 108: (void)close(fd); I'd really, really like to check `close()` for errors and report any. src/jdk.jdwp.agent/unix/native/libjdwp/exec_md.c line 138: > 136: " %d file descriptors sequentially", (max_fd - i + > 1))); > 137: for (; i < max_fd; i++) { > 138: (void)close(i); Here as well, I'd really like to check for `close()`for errors here and report any. And if we find errors here, do we really want to proceed knowing that something went wrong already? ------------- Changes requested by gziemski (Committer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17588#pullrequestreview-1849357100 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17588#discussion_r1469984071 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17588#discussion_r1469979677
