On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 06:27:33 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Chris' review suggestion - replace LOG_MISC with ERROR_MESSAGE
>
> src/jdk.jdwp.agent/unix/native/libjdwp/exec_md.c
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:48:40 GMT, Joachim Kern wrote:
>> Suchismith Roy has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> update comment
>
> src/hotspot/os/aix/os_aix.cpp line 1166:
>
>> 1164: Search order:
>> 1165: libfilename-> load
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 22:39:41 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Taizo Kurashige has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 8313710: jcmd: typo in the documentation of JFR.start and JFR.dump
>
> Changes requested by dholmes (Reviewer).
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 01:46:57 GMT, Jaikiran Pai 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=` option),
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 14:02:41 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>>> Yes there is a nice define in the AIX header
>>
>> *sigh* On linux, they go to some lengths to avoid this, using a __REDEFINE
>> mechanism. Oh well.
>>
>> Anyway, I think this particular can be resolved by not including the
>>
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 03:50:29 GMT, Alex Menkov wrote:
>> Chris Plummer has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> fix spacing
>
> test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/sa/ClhsdbJstackWithConcurrentLock.java line
> 65:
>
>> 63:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 01:20:53 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> I noticed that "clhsdb jstack" seemed to hang when I attached to process
>> with a somewhat large heap. It had taken over 10 minutes when I finally
>> decided to have a look at the SA process (using bin/jstack), which came up
>> with
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 01:46:57 GMT, Jaikiran Pai 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=` option),
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 01:46:57 GMT, Jaikiran Pai 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=` option),
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:41:48 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> assert that we don't pass values higher than INT_MAX to close()
>
> src/jdk.jdwp.agent/unix/native/libjdwp/exec_md.c
> 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=` option), it iterates over an extremely large
> number of file
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:41:28 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> src/java.management/share/classes/com/sun/jmx/remote/security/MBeanServerFileAccessController.java
>> line 307:
>>
>>> 305: AccessController.doPrivileged(new PrivilegedAction<>() {
>>> 306: public Subject
> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based
> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs.
> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the
> current subject differently. See the spec change in the `Subject.java` file
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 02:42:29 GMT, Leonid Mesnik wrote:
> Some jvmti tests use
> -Djava.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.common.parallelism
> to control the pool of virtual threads. However, it is controlled by
> jdk.virtualThreadScheduler.parallelism property.
>
> The non-continuations
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:45:34 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> OK - things seem to be a bit convoluted here and some pieces might be
>> missing. I suspect that what needs to be done is more complicated:
>>
>> `RMIConnectionImpl` sets up an ACC and calls doPrivileged with that ACC, on
>> the
> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based
> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs.
> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the
> current subject differently. See the spec change in the `Subject.java` file
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 21:20:04 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> In PointerFinder.java we have some code to determine if a pointer is in a
>> TLAB, but it only executes for the SerialGC. It should work for all GCs, so
>> I moved the code out of the SerialGC block.
>>
>> I also cleaned up the
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 01:20:53 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> I noticed that "clhsdb jstack" seemed to hang when I attached to process
>> with a somewhat large heap. It had taken over 10 minutes when I finally
>> decided to have a look at the SA process (using bin/jstack), which came up
>> with
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:17:58 GMT, Jaikiran Pai 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=` option),
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:14:58 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
> Please review this PR with a simple solution for resolving duplicate `Thread`
> symbol issue. In https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14808 comments, there
> was an alternative suggestion to redefine the symbol at build time, such as
>
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:43:15 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
> Please review this trivial change that renames the file
> test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/thread/GetStackTrace/get_stack_trace.h
> to get_stack_trace.hpp, and renames uses of NULL in that file.
>
> The updates to #include lines in
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:40:05 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Please review this trivial change that renames the file
>> test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/thread/GetStackTrace/get_stack_trace.h
>> to get_stack_trace.hpp, and renames uses of NULL in that file.
>>
>> The updates to #include
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:17:58 GMT, Jaikiran Pai 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=` option),
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:15:17 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>>> If we are going to check close for errors then we will have to know for
>>> certain we are only trying to close open fd's, and we will have to deal
>>> with EINTR. I would think this is a "best effort" to close open FD's and
>>> not
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:56:53 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based
>> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs.
>> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the
>> current subject
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 14:19:02 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> src/java.management/share/classes/com/sun/jmx/remote/internal/ServerNotifForwarder.java
>> line 349:
>>
>>> 347: @SuppressWarnings("removal")
>>> 348: private Subject getSubject() {
>>> 349: return Subject.current();
>>
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:17:58 GMT, Jaikiran Pai 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=` option),
Is that actually safe to allow low priveledged user context to attach and
control to a higher prived? It can at least overwrite files, but probably also
inject code? On the native level a ptrace(2) would probably not be allowed.
Gruß
Bernd
—
https://bernd.eckenfels.net
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:52:49 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> src/jdk.jdwp.agent/unix/native/libjdwp/exec_md.c line 129:
>>
>>> 127: /* Find max allowed file descriptors for a process
>>> 128: * and assume all were opened for the parent process and
>>> 129: * copied over to
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:45:34 GMT, Gerard Ziemski wrote:
>> Hello Gerard, my understanding is that the limit value configured may exceed
>> the int range. I wanted to avoid the overflow by casting it to int in such
>> cases. I had noticed close() takes an int, but I couldn't think of any other
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:14:45 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> If we are going to check close for errors then we will have to know for
>> certain we are only trying to close open fd's, and we will have to deal with
>> EINTR. I would think this is a "best effort" to close open FD's and not
>>
> 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=` option), it iterates over an extremely large
> number of file
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:53:37 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based
>> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs.
>> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the
>> current subject
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 23:41:53 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based
> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs.
> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the
> current subject
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:47:22 GMT, Sebastian Lövdahl wrote:
> 8307977: jcmd and jstack broken for target processes running with elevated
> capabilities
`test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability` tests would also be worth running.
-
PR Comment:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 23:41:53 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based
> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs.
> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the
> current subject
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:57:09 GMT, Sebastian Lövdahl wrote:
> I have poked around in the JDK sources but not found any tests related to
> this. Is there some prior art to look at?
Please run container tests, which do some jcmd testing across containers (host
system runs `jcmd` and containers
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 12:13:00 GMT, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > The only "perfect" solution is putting the HotSpot code in a namespace.
> > This is going to be a huge undertaking. I don't think we have enough
> > interest in the OpenJDK community to make such a change now.
>
> I don't think that
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 12:01:56 GMT, Ioi Lam wrote:
> The only "perfect" solution is putting the HotSpot code in a namespace. This
> is going to be a huge undertaking. I don't think we have enough interest in
> the OpenJDK community to make such a change now.
I don't think that putting all of
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:47:22 GMT, Sebastian Lövdahl wrote:
> 8307977: jcmd and jstack broken for target processes running with elevated
> capabilities
src/jdk.attach/linux/classes/sun/tools/attach/VirtualMachineImpl.java line 217:
> 215: // Instead, attach relative to the target root
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:27:08 GMT, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > > Maybe we could live with symbol redefinition using #define
> > > > (conditionally for static linking in OpenJDK, as Coleen suggested
> > > > earlier) for now, until the tooling can support symbol localizing
> > > > better. Then
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:47:22 GMT, Sebastian Lövdahl wrote:
> 8307977: jcmd and jstack broken for target processes running with elevated
> capabilities
ping @jerboaa
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17628#issuecomment-1916676356
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:47:22 GMT, Sebastian Lövdahl wrote:
> 8307977: Fix dynamic attach to processes with elevated capabilities on Linux
I have poked around in the JDK sources but not found any tests related to this.
Is there some prior art to look at?
Anyway, this is how I reproduced it
8307977: Fix dynamic attach to processes with elevated capabilities on Linux
-
Commit messages:
- 8307977: Fix dynamic attach to processes with elevated capabilities on Linux
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17628/files
Webrev:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:43:15 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
> Please review this trivial change that renames the file
> test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/thread/GetStackTrace/get_stack_trace.h
> to get_stack_trace.hpp, and renames uses of NULL in that file.
>
> The updates to #include lines in
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:20:21 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
> > > Maybe we could live with symbol redefinition using #define (conditionally
> > > for static linking in OpenJDK, as Coleen suggested earlier) for now,
> > > until the tooling can support symbol localizing better. Then localizing
> > >
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:43:15 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
> Please review this trivial change that renames the file
> test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/thread/GetStackTrace/get_stack_trace.h
> to get_stack_trace.hpp, and renames uses of NULL in that file.
>
> The updates to #include lines in
47 matches
Mail list logo
