> This bug was discovered during the development of 
> [JDK-6824466](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6824466): when CDS is 
> enabled, if `BootLoader::loadClassOrNull` is called before `initPhase2`, it 
> would trigger the initialization of the archived module graph in the wrong 
> order. Because of unanticipated nesting of `<clinit>` methods, 
> `BootLoader::SERVICES_CATALOG` becomes empty, causing future `ServiceLoader` 
> operations to fail.
> 
> The fix has 2 parts:
> 
> - `BootLoader::loadClassOrNull` no longer calls `ClassLoaders::bootLoader()`. 
> This avoids triggering the archived module graph initialization. Instead, it 
> makes a direct call to `Classloader::findBootstrapClassOrNull()`. We don't 
> actually need a `ClassLoader` instance for this call, so I changed 
> `Classloader::findBootstrapClassOrNull()` to be a static method.
> - The object returned by `BootLoader::getServicesCatalog()` is now maintained 
> inside `jdk.internal.loader.ClassLoaders`.  Although not strictly required 
> for the fix, this simplifies the initialization of the archived module graph. 
> It also makes the logic consistent for the 3 built-in loaders 
> (boot/platform/app).
> 
> Testing: tiers1-4 in progress. I also verified that the bug reported by Mandy 
> is no longer reproducible after I applied this patch on her branch.

Ioi Lam has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit 
since the last revision:

  cleaned up ClassLoaders.setArchivedServicesCatalog

-------------

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3992/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3992/files/8067306a..4cd981c0

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk&pr=3992&range=02
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk&pr=3992&range=01-02

  Stats: 7 lines in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 2 del; 5 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3992.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/3992/head:pull/3992

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3992

Reply via email to