On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 09:14:01 GMT, Long Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, could I have a review of this patch. > > This patch fixes [JDK-8391637](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8391637). > > On `risc-v`, > [LinuxRISCV64CFrame.sender()](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/c368bac40e185398fbc40dc4d75a457f7a36f954/src/jdk.hotspot.agent/share/classes/sun/jvm/hotspot/debugger/linux/riscv64/LinuxRISCV64CFrame.java#L70) > validates only FP alignment, then dereferences FP for SP, link, and return > address. An aligned arbitrary FP (such as 0x90) can therefore cause > UnmappedAddressException, and lead to incomplete stack for the target thread. > > `aarch64` and `amdf64`already use `dwarf` to unwind native frames, see > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/c368bac40e185398fbc40dc4d75a457f7a36f954/src/jdk.hotspot.agent/share/classes/sun/jvm/hotspot/debugger/linux/amd64/LinuxAMD64CFrame.java#L36 > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/c368bac40e185398fbc40dc4d75a457f7a36f954/src/jdk.hotspot.agent/share/classes/sun/jvm/hotspot/debugger/linux/aarch64/LinuxAARCH64CFrame.java#L38 > > This patch makes `risc-v` to unwind with `dwarf` too. > > The `risc-v` version basically has the same design as the `aarch64` version. > There are also several differences , primarily due to differences in calling > conventions. Almost every difference is accompanied by an explanatory > comment. > > I have ran tests in `test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/sa` on `risc-v` and > `amd64`, all passed. > > --------- > - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the [OpenJDK > Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). You appear to have used a generative AI tool to create a comment above (Copilot review). This violates the [OpenJDK AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). Please delete the comment if possible and refrain from asking for Copilot reviews in the future. Thanks. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/33358#issuecomment-6170511466
