Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of pmcfirst@gmail.com designates
 209.85.132.247 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=DzjtIFbu5ELmp+QKyX2gANWphmKd6qhKjtyUSNHb2lbjckMiREFA61Fpvr2V7/r5ua7224rH1pYAso7NBVRWQpjKvJoTXAhpS815w7NWx+uU4whDk9HXmRVYf3aHyWwgHcDwVefUb1WOpq5AsaRBBGOqH47cCu/KdGoh8t3hUWY=
Message-ID: <e0f125db0707270607q706fc017t5d844b5093093abf@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:07:55 +0400
From: "Pavel Pervov" <pmcfirst@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (HARMONY-4538) [drlvm][verifier][regression]
 Two tests on invokevirtual instruction started to fail after verifier switch.
In-Reply-To: <906dd82e0707270516g121c0bf8q86e24185c81946d@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_5164_28779848.1185541675394"
References: <504418.1185372751394.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
	 <12505728.1185434911378.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
	 <906dd82e0707270516g121c0bf8q86e24185c81946d@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_5164_28779848.1185541675394
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Mikhail,

The spec reads (2.17.3 Linking): "VerifyError: The binary definition for a
class or interface failed to pass a set of required checks to verify that it
cannot violate the integrity if the Java virtual machine".

Although I was unable to find any requirements in the specification, but
RI consider the checks which are stressed by these tests to be "required
checks to verify that it (binary definition) cannot violate the integrity".

Verification of binary represenation have to occur before any code of a
class is executed. So, this is required to be checked by verifier, although
it may look totally unnatural.

Thank you,
    Pavel.

On 7/27/07, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Though this bugs needs to be fixed, I have a feeling that verifer is not
> the right place for this check:
>
> It checks the following: if 'a' extends 'b' and 'b' has protected
> method (or field) 'm',
> and 'a' and 'b' have different packages then you can't call e.g.
> 'new b().m()' from a method of class 'a'
>
> If you try you should get VerifyError.
>
> old verifier has this check, I've implemented it in the new one as well,
> but i'm reluctant to integrate it since these access checks are not
> specific
> for verifier and all other access check are implemented in runtime
>
> For example if in the example above 'm' is package-access, then
> IllegalAccessError
> is thrown.
>
> I suggest that we don't fix verifier's behavior but instead move this
> check to a more
> natural place
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
>
> 2007/7/26, Mikhail Loenko (JIRA) <jira@apache.org>:
> >
> >    [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-4538?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12515613]
> >
> > Mikhail Loenko commented on HARMONY-4538:
> > -----------------------------------------
> >
> > evaluation: this one should be fixed as well
> >
> > > [drlvm][verifier][regression] Two tests on invokevirtual instruction
> started to fail after verifier switch.
> > >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >                 Key: HARMONY-4538
> > >                 URL:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-4538
> > >             Project: Harmony
> > >          Issue Type: Bug
> > >          Components: DRLVM
> > >            Reporter: Pavel Pervov
> > >            Assignee: Mikhail Loenko
> > >
> > > The tests
> > >
> vm/jvms/instructions/invokeReturn/invokevirtual/invokevirtual13/invokevirtual1304/invokevirtual1304
> and
> > >
> vm/jvms/instructions/invokeReturn/invokevirtual/invokevirtual13/invokevirtual1309/invokevirtual1309
> > > started to fail.
> > > Tests check that protected and private methods of superclass located
> in package different from the class can't be called.
> >
> > --
> > This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
> > -
> > You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
> >
> >
>


-- 
Pavel Pervov,
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division

------=_Part_5164_28779848.1185541675394--