Re: [jdk23] RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457

2024-06-21 Thread Adam Sotona
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 20:11:06 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: > Please review this patch, which is a backport of the fix in #19615 to JDK 23. > > This is not a clean patch, because the old patch was done on JDK-8333479 > (#19585) which was absent in JDK 23; however, the conflicts were small, and > the o

[jdk23] RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457

2024-06-20 Thread Chen Liang
Please review this patch, which is a backport of the fix in #19615 to JDK 23. This is not a clean patch, because the old patch was done on JDK-8333479 (#19585) which was absent in JDK 23; however, the conflicts were small, and the only real changes were that `methodTypeDesc` and `classDesc` from

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v5]

2024-06-18 Thread Chen Liang
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 14:11:48 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy >> usages. >> >> Since the problematic patch from before cannot be backed out, this patch >> aims to emulate the old behavior before. A diff between before the >>

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v5]

2024-06-18 Thread Claes Redestad
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 14:11:48 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy >> usages. >> >> Since the problematic patch from before cannot be backed out, this patch >> aims to emulate the old behavior before. A diff between before the >>

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v5]

2024-06-18 Thread Adam Sotona
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 14:11:48 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy >> usages. >> >> Since the problematic patch from before cannot be backed out, this patch >> aims to emulate the old behavior before. A diff between before the >>

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v5]

2024-06-13 Thread Chen Liang
> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy > usages. > > Since the problematic patch from before cannot be backed out, this patch aims > to emulate the old behavior before. A diff between before the problematic > patch and this patch is available at > https:/

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v4]

2024-06-13 Thread Chen Liang
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 13:59:09 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/ProxyGenerator.java line 676: >> >>> 674: * @param method The method for which to create a >>> proxy >>> 675: */ >>> 676: private ProxyMethod(Method method, St

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v4]

2024-06-13 Thread Chen Liang
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:27:47 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote: >> Chen Liang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> More rename and code style cleanup > > src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/ProxyGenerator.java line 676: > >

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v4]

2024-06-13 Thread Claes Redestad
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 22:00:45 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy >> usages. >> >> Since the problematic patch from before cannot be backed out, this patch >> aims to emulate the old behavior before. A diff between before the >>

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v4]

2024-06-12 Thread Chen Liang
> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy > usages. > > Since the problematic patch from before cannot be backed out, this patch aims > to emulate the old behavior before. A diff between before the problematic > patch and this patch is available at > https:/

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v2]

2024-06-12 Thread Chen Liang
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:13:10 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote: >> Chen Liang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Obtain classloader in security manager friendly code path > > Agree with Roger that static imports should be used spari

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v3]

2024-06-12 Thread Roger Riggs
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:48:41 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy >> usages. >> >> Since the problematic patch from before cannot be backed out, this patch >> aims to emulate the old behavior before. A diff between before the >>

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v3]

2024-06-12 Thread Chen Liang
> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy > usages. > > CONSTANT_Class and CONSTANT_MethodType must fail resolution for inaccessible > package-private types per JVMS 5.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.5, yet such types can appear > in method descriptors in the same class. The

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v2]

2024-06-12 Thread Roger Riggs
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 04:08:41 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy >> usages. >> >> CONSTANT_Class and CONSTANT_MethodType must fail resolution for inaccessible >> package-private types per JVMS 5.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.5, yet such types

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v2]

2024-06-12 Thread Claes Redestad
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 04:08:41 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy >> usages. >> >> CONSTANT_Class and CONSTANT_MethodType must fail resolution for inaccessible >> package-private types per JVMS 5.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.5, yet such types

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v2]

2024-06-11 Thread Roger Riggs
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 04:08:41 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy >> usages. >> >> CONSTANT_Class and CONSTANT_MethodType must fail resolution for inaccessible >> package-private types per JVMS 5.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.5, yet such types

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v2]

2024-06-10 Thread Claes Redestad
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 04:08:41 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy >> usages. >> >> CONSTANT_Class and CONSTANT_MethodType must fail resolution for inaccessible >> package-private types per JVMS 5.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.5, yet such types

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v2]

2024-06-10 Thread Chen Liang
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 04:08:41 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy >> usages. >> >> CONSTANT_Class and CONSTANT_MethodType must fail resolution for inaccessible >> package-private types per JVMS 5.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.5, yet such types

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v2]

2024-06-10 Thread Claes Redestad
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 04:08:41 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy >> usages. >> >> CONSTANT_Class and CONSTANT_MethodType must fail resolution for inaccessible >> package-private types per JVMS 5.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.5, yet such types

Re: RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457 [v2]

2024-06-09 Thread Chen Liang
> Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy > usages. > > CONSTANT_Class and CONSTANT_MethodType must fail resolution for inaccessible > package-private types per JVMS 5.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.5, yet such types can appear > in method descriptors in the same class. The

RFR: 8333854: IllegalAccessError with proxies after JDK-8332457

2024-06-09 Thread Chen Liang
Please review this patch that fixes a critical issue that breaks some Proxy usages. CONSTANT_Class and CONSTANT_MethodType must fail resolution for inaccessible package-private types per JVMS 5.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.5, yet such types can appear in method descriptors in the same class. The proposed wa