On 8/25/17 02:24, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Jini,
On 8/18/17 04:00, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Jini,
Just reading the bug report and your description below this seems
like a major change to try and use a facility (mach exceptions) that
no one seems to have any experience with! That isn't something to be
rushed.
Even if PT_ATTACH has been deprecated restoring its use may be the
quick way forward instead of trying to rush in something like this.
This approach looks reasonable to me.
I've just realized that my statement might sound incorrectly.
I meant that the David's suggestion to restore the use of the deprecated
PT_ATTACH looks reasonable.
Sorry, if it caused any confusion.
Thanks,
Serguei
Otherwise, it would be nice to hear why it is not good.
How much would it break the fix of the JDK-8182299?
Thanks,
Serguei
Just my 2c.
Cheers,
David
On 18/08/2017 8:00 PM, Jini George wrote:
Hi all,
Requesting reviews for:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8184042
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jgeorge/8184042/webrev.00/
Problem gist: The deprecated ptrace() command, PT_ATTACH was changed
to PT_ATTACHEXC, which causes mach exceptions (and not UNIX signals)
to be delivered via mach messages.This caused SA to hang at
waitpid() waiting for a signal, which does not arrive.
Solution in a nutshell: The solution is to make the required changes
to handle mach 'soft signal' exceptions in the form of mach messages
instead of signals, while attaching to and detaching from the target
process. The detailed steps are outlined in JBS.
The changes appear huge due to the inclusion of pre-generated mach
exception handling files (mach_exc*). Since this is an integration
blocker, it would be great to get quick reviews on this.
Thank you,
Jini.
