harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexey Varlamov" <alexey.v.varla...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm] Non-bug difference HARMONY-1688?
Date Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:15:28 GMT
2006/10/9, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com>:
> 2006/10/9, Pavel Pervov <pmcfirst@gmail.com>:
> > Commenting on (1) I should note, that VM generally can't determine the fact
> > of "initiating" class loading; it can only be done in Java (except bootstrap
> > class loader, of course).
> I presume you mean cases of direct calls to loadClass() from executed
> Java code. Well, the same way VM loads array classes on its own, not
> resorting to Java loader instance. So AFAIU, neither VM nor Java have
> 100% chance to register initiating loading singly on their own.
>
Hey, I found the clear specification on (1)! Look at JVMS 2nd ed, Para
5.3.2 - 5.3.3, it reads:
"First, the Java virtual machine determines whether L has already been
recorded as an initiating loader of a class or interface denoted by N.
If so, this class or interface is C, and no class creation is
necessary.
Otherwise the Java virtual machine invokes loadClass(N ) on L."

So this is definitely bug of DRLVM, which should be fixed mainly on VM
side. And we may want to think how to avoid data duplication in VM and
kernel classes on this matter...

> > AFAIK, there is the bug: DRLVM does not record initiating class loader of a
> > class. (1) is just the consequence.
> Not really. After H-1363 (aka BBC), j.l.ClassLoader records initiated
> classes. There may be some holes in impl (e.g. for array classes), but
> kernel classes fulfill API contract in general.
>
> >
> >
> > On 10/9/06, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Would you mind to spend some time looking at HARMONY-1688? Good
> > > knowledge of classloading and security machinery is an advantage :)
> > >
> > > In short, we face 2 issues in DRLVM:
> > > 1) DRLVM itself is not aware of classes initiated (in contrast to
> > > defined ones) by a loader, and always delegates to Java classes for
> > > lookup (except bootstrap loader, of course). This is not really queer
> > > behaviour, but seems incompartible with most VMs. BTW, currently this
> > > affects implementation of jvmtiGetClassLoaderClasses(), which I
> > > believe has a bug - it returns defined classes only.
> > > 2) j.s.AccessController of DRLVM treats system classes (i.e. loaded by
> > > bootstrap loader) equally with application classes while examining
> > > execution stack, while RI seems to be simply skipping them. In other
> > > words, DRLVM would always perform ProtectionDomain.checkPermission()
> > > with AllPermission for bootstrap classes, and RI will omit such check
> > > if no user classes on stack. This potentially may produce subtle
> > > effects in security-exigent areas.
> > >
> > > Also, both can be considered from performance perspective, probably
> > > having somewhat negative impact.
> > > What do you think, how will we resolve this?
> > >
> > > [0] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1688
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message