On 2.10.2015 18:54, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the following change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8138748
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8138748/webrev.00
The ManagementAgent.status DCMD, introduced in JDK 9, doesn't play
nicely with the management
Jaroslav,
Looks good for me but I'm not a reviewer.
-Dmitry
On 2015-10-07 11:28, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> On 2.10.2015 18:54, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>> Please, review the following change
>>
>> Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8138748
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jb
Please, review the following test change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8138579
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8138579/webrev.00
This test is exercising a custom launcher (executable). Since it is not
possible to check in a file and prevent its executable flag t
Hi Jaroslav,
Thats looks good to me.
Unfortunately not a reviewer anyway...
Olivier.
On 07/10/2015 10:28, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 2.10.2015 18:54, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the following change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8138748
Webrev: http://cr.open
Jaroslav,
You can use ld to run non-executable binary:
Linux (check /proc/self/map for exact version of ld used)
/lib/ld-2.20.so ./a.out
Solaris:
/lib/ld.so.1 ./a.out
-Dmitry
On 2015-10-07 15:15, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> Please, review the following test change
>
> Issue : https://bugs.o
Looks good.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 10/7/15 01:28, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 2.10.2015 18:54, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the following change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8138748
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8138748/webrev.00
The ManagementAgent
Looks good.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 10/7/15 05:15, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the following test change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8138579
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8138579/webrev.00
This test is exercising a custom launcher (executable). Sinc
Hm, how can a normal user "give away" the ownership of a file? Only when the
test is run as root the owner can be different, but in that case root would be
able to set the x bit anyway. So i am not sure the explanation is correct?
(Cant read the bug)
Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
On 7.10.2015 22:44, e...@zusammenkunft.net wrote:
Hm, how can a normal user "give away" the ownership of a file? Only when the
test is run as root the owner can be different, but in that case root would be able to
set the x bit anyway. So i am not sure the explanation is correct? (Cant read the
