What I meant was that since we already pay for the memory leak, we could just change this behavior and handle NULL methodIDs gracefully. We do this already for JVMTI.
Otherwise, if we do not what to do this check and consider this to be the caller's responsibility, I do not see the point of keeping the NULLed-out jmethodID tables around. What for, just to make the crash to be a bit more predictable? ..Thomas On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:22 PM JC Beyler <jcbey...@google.com> wrote: > > We pay for it to support easily the JVMTI spec. JNI does not check for NULL > and will crash if you pass a jmethod that points to NULL. I've checked that > pretty much every method will crash as they all call resolve_jmethod_id at > the start. > > As I said before, it's not a bug, the spec is just ambiguous because at the > method definitions of the spec it just says the jmethodIDs have to come from > a GetMethodID call but the more general spec that both I and Dean quoted say > that it is the native agent's job to ensure the class does not get unloaded > to keep the jmethod valid [1]. > > Thanks, > Jc > > [1] > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/jni/spec/design.html#wp16696 > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:38 AM Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:19 PM <coleen.phillim...@oracle.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On 11/28/18 10:08 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote: >> > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:03 PM <coleen.phillim...@oracle.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On 11/28/18 10:00 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote: >> > >>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:59 PM Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stu...@gmail.com> >> > >>> wrote: >> > >>>> Hi Coleen, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> (moved to svc-dev since David did shoo us off discuss before :-) >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Just to be sure I understand: >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> If the class is unloaded, the jmethodID is cleared. Native code >> > >>>>> should >> > >>>>> first test whether it's NULL. I think that is the predictable >> > >>>>> behavior >> > >>>>> that the spec requires. >> > >>>> Wait, really? So, As a JNI caller I should do this: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> jmethodID method; >> > >>>> .. >> > >>>> if (*method == NULL) { .. invalid method id .. } ? >> > >>>> >> > >>>> I thought jmethodid is opaque, and its value itself cannot be changed >> > >>>> from the VM, no? >> > >>>> >> > >>> Oh you probably meant "native code in the VM", not "native JNI code". >> > >>> Sorry for the confusion. >> > >> I did mean native JNI code, but I actually don't know how native JNI >> > >> code is supposed to deal with nulled out jmethodIDs. >> > >> >> > >> Maybe they predictably crash? >> > >> >> > >> Coleen >> > > I always thought it would gracefully reject, e.g. on JVMTI with >> > > JVMTI_ERROR_INVALID_METHODID. >> > > >> > > Save that JC wrote that there are some JNI function sequences where >> > > the VM would still crashes: >> > > >> > > <quote jc> >> > > - Get a jmethodID and remember it >> > > - Wait until the class gets unloaded >> > > - Get the class to get reloaded and try call the old jmethodID >> > > (which now points to NULL), the code will segfault >> > > </quote> >> > > >> > > which looks like just a bug to me. >> > >> > It may be misuse of JNI also. We don't guarantee a lot of things with >> > JNI. Maybe instead of clearing, we could install a Method* that throws >> > NSME. >> > >> > But I guess why leak the jmethodID memory if it's going to crash anyway >> > when using it? >> > >> >> Precisely :) We pay for it, we may just as well use it. >> >> ..Thomas >> >> > Coleen >> > >> > > >> > > ..Thomas >> > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > Jc
