Hi Marc,
I’m one of the AdoptOpenJDK representatives. Please to come and
report it to us (openjdk-support repo on our github) sounds like
an issue that a packaging workaround may be able to solve. If
it’s genuinely a generic openjdk issue we can help triage
regardless 🙂
Cheers,
Martijn
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:46, David Holmes
<david.hol...@oracle.com <mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>> wrote:
On 3/02/2020 10:04 am, Marc Streckfuß wrote:
> Hi David,
> Thanks in Advance for that swift analysis!
>
> Actually I am asking on behalf of jMonkeyEngine, but didn't
see the
> precise post you've outlined.
> The hint that this seems to be related to the build
environment is a
> good one, actually we switched from Oracle 8 to
AdoptOpenJDK 11.0.5, so
> this may come into play.
> My intent for posting here was at least to get some eyes on
the
> situation, as searching the net is mostly a list of
confusing reports
> with the only solution being going back to 8.
>
> I wonder one thing, though: Does the JVM statically link
against glibc?
I'm not sure sorry - the detailed build config is not
something I'm
intimately familiar with. It may be configurable.
> As usually when the glibc is linked in dynamically, there
shouldn't be
> many ways this can trigger a bug, like it depends on the
runtime
> environment and not on the build environment.
> Apart from the suggestions on our forums, did you find some
clear
> statement on the glibc bug? e.g. which version could've
triggered it?
Some of the links I was following were actually for different
failure
modes so drew blanks. This one is interesting though:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-7/+bug/1764701
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/*source/gcc-7/*bug/1764701__;Kys!!GqivPVa7Brio!ILKOUmt20SkUgMFjnMzicAW4_SK7C4SCf-ZKvIHJfOxuxVkigbgGTKIVsdaknoFiCw$>
Particularly the last post regarding Ubuntu OpenJDK build versus
AdoptOpenJDK. I can't quite glean exactly where they think
the problem
is though.
> If it really depends on the build environment/JDK
Distribution, we can
> mark this as solved. I'll do some research and report this
to the
> AdoptOpenJDK team and lets see what happens.
It would be really good if someone who can reproduce this can
try with
11.0.4 and 11.0.5 from OS distribution, AdoptOpenJDK build
and Oracle
JDK build.
Cheers,
David
-----
>
> Thanks for your time,
> Marc
>
> Am Mo., 3. Feb. 2020 um 00:18 Uhr schrieb David Holmes
> <david.hol...@oracle.com <mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>
<mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com
<mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>>>:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 1/02/2020 9:56 pm, Marc Streckfuß wrote:
> > Dear Sirs or Madams,
> > Since posting to the Java Bug System is restricted
to OpenJDK
> Authors, I'm
> > asking here for help and maybe someone can create a
tracking
> issue on my
> > behalf.
> >
> > We're seeing a problem where loading the "lwjgl2" (
> > https://github.com/LWJGL/lwjgl
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/LWJGL/lwjgl__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!ILKOUmt20SkUgMFjnMzicAW4_SK7C4SCf-ZKvIHJfOxuxVkigbgGTKIVsdbadJxVJw$>)
native dependencies fails ONLY on
> Linux and
> > ONLY on JDK/JVM 11.
> > I've been told that this only happens on 11.0.5,
11.0.4 should be
> fine,
> > however research shows, that this also happens on 11.0.3
> > https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/532054
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/532054__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!ILKOUmt20SkUgMFjnMzicAW4_SK7C4SCf-ZKvIHJfOxuxVkigbgGTKIVsdYPDBzvfA$>.
> >
> > The issue is:
> >
> > Inconsistency detected by ld.so: dl-lookup.c: 111:
check_match:
> > Assertion `version->filename == NULL || !
_dl_name_match_p
> > (version->filename, map)' failed!
> >
> > Technically this issue stems from glib, here:
> >
>
https://github.com/lattera/glibc/blob/master/elf/dl-lookup.c#L111
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/lattera/glibc/blob/master/elf/dl-lookup.c*L111__;Iw!!GqivPVa7Brio!ILKOUmt20SkUgMFjnMzicAW4_SK7C4SCf-ZKvIHJfOxuxVkigbgGTKIVsdbtcEOjKQ$>,
> but it
> > has to be somehow related to the way the JVM is
interacting with
> glibc, as
> > this behavior wasn't there with Java 8.
> > I can't really reliable comment on the state for
versions 9, 10
> and up
> > until 11.0.4, but 11.0.5 has the problem and 8 doesn't.
> >
> > Sorry for the vague information on this one, but
maybe someone
> has an idea
> > or could give this a quick look?
> > I guess if you already have a dev env setup and can
step through
> with a
> > debugger, the issue could be trivial.
>
> I've done a bit of a google search on this problem and
it seems to be a
> somewhat confused situation. I've seen reports of 8 not
working, but
> falling back to 8 as fixing it. I've seen 11.0.5 is
broken but 11.0.4
> works, but someone else said 11.0.4 was fine. I've
followed other
> reports that indicate this all relates to a glibc bug.
>
>
https://hub.jmonkeyengine.org/t/solved-jme-does-not-work-at-all-on-modern-java-due-to-a-regression/42112/14
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://hub.jmonkeyengine.org/t/solved-jme-does-not-work-at-all-on-modern-java-due-to-a-regression/42112/14__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!ILKOUmt20SkUgMFjnMzicAW4_SK7C4SCf-ZKvIHJfOxuxVkigbgGTKIVsdZhXS8GXA$>
>
> but also suggests a different solution:
>
> "you either need openJDK 11.0.4 (not 11.0.5) or lwjgl3
instead of
> lwjgl2
> unfortunately."
>
> From what I can tell from the reports that I have
found is that the
> problem seems to come and go with OpenJDK builds from
different OpenJDK
> distributors. I did not see any reports that
conclusively indicated the
> problem was seen on Oracle JDK. My suspicion is that
whether or not
> this
> problem appears depends on how the JDK was built i.e.
which version of
> glibc it has been linked against. The Oracle JDK
binaries for 11.0.4
> and
> 11.0.5 seems to have the exact same build environment.
I can't comment
> on any binaries from other places e.g. AdoptOpenJDK.
This conclusion
> was
> also proposed on the jmonkeyengine post above:
>
> "If they’re right, it’s going to depend on what version
of glibc you
> jvm
> is using, and possibly what was present when your
native payload was
> compiled."
>
> Not sure what can be done at the OpenJDK end.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> > Thanks in Advance,
> > Marc Streckfuß
> >
>
--
Cheers, Martijn (Sent from Gmail Mobile)
