Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-37592-apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive=jackrabbit.apache.org@jackrabbit.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A22610C31
	for <apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:09:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 11873 invoked by uid 500); 23 Apr 2013 15:09:15 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received: (qmail 11807 invoked by uid 500); 23 Apr 2013 15:09:15 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@jackrabbit.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@jackrabbit.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.jackrabbit.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received: (qmail 11675 invoked by uid 99); 23 Apr 2013 15:09:15 -0000
Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas.apache.org) (140.211.11.28)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:09:15 +0000
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:09:15 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Ate Douma (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12644135.1366729366218.208377.1366729755607@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12644135.1366729366218@arcas>
References: <JIRA.12644135.1366729366218@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Updated] (JCR-3581) Incorrect bitwise arithmetic in
 BitsetENTCacheImpl.BitsetKey.compareTo implementation - wrong bit mask
 value used
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394


     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3581?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Ate Douma updated JCR-3581:
---------------------------

    Attachment: JCR-3581.patch

The JCR-3581.patch was created against current trunk but should be applicable for many previous version branches as well as this code hasn't been changed in a long while.
                
> Incorrect bitwise arithmetic in BitsetENTCacheImpl.BitsetKey.compareTo implementation - wrong bit mask value used  
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: JCR-3581
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3581
>             Project: Jackrabbit Content Repository
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: jackrabbit-core, jackrabbit-jcr2spi
>    Affects Versions: 2.6, 2.7
>            Reporter: Ate Douma
>         Attachments: JCR-3581.patch
>
>
> The BitsetKey class encodes Names bitwise in one or more long values.
> For its Comparable.compareTo implementation, the long value(s) are compared first by ">>> 32" shifting to compare the higher bits, and if that equals out by comparing the lower 32 bits.
> The bug is in the latter part: instead of masking off the higher 32 bits using "& 0x0ffffffffL", the current code is masking the higher 48 bits using "& 0x0ffffL", as shown in snippet below from the current compareTo implementation:
>                     long w1 = adr<bits.length ? bits[adr] : 0;
>                     long w2 = adr<o.bits.length ? o.bits[adr] : 0;
>                     if (w1 != w2) {
>                         // some signed arithmetic here
>                         long h1 = w1 >>> 32;
>                         long h2 = w2 >>> 32;
>                         if (h1 == h2) {
>                             h1 = w1 & 0x0ffffL;
>                             h2 = w2 & 0x0ffffL;
>                         }
>                         return Long.signum(h2 - h1);
>                     }
> As result of this error many possible keys cannot and will not be stored in the BitsetENTCacheImpl private TreeSet<Key> sortedKeys: only one key for every key with a value between 0x0ffffL and 0x0ffffffffL (for *each* long field) will be stored.
> Note that such 'duplicate' keys however will be used and stored in the other BitsetENTCacheImpl private HashMap<Key, EffectiveNodeType> aggregates.
> As far as I can tell this doesn't really 'break' the functionality, but can lead to many redundant and unnecessary (re)creation of keys and entries in the aggregates map.
> The fix of course is easy but I will also provide a patch file with fixes for the two (largely duplicate?) BitsetENTCacheImpl implementations (jackrabbit-core and jackrabbit-jcr2spi).

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira