On 4 Mar 2015, at 21:53, Mark Sheppard <mark.shepp...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi > please oblige and review the following small change > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~msheppar/8065078/webrev/ I agree with the increased buffer size, and the strategy you have employed. I think you just need to remove a few comments, otherwise looks fine to me. -Chris. > to address the issue raised in > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8065078 > > the getAdapters and getAdpater functions were amended in > to add additional diagnostic of the error code, in the event of a > failure, following the second invocation of GetAdpatersAddresses in the call > flows. > This has shown that the ERROR_BUFFER_OVERFLOW (i.e. 111) > can occur even though the buffer, to hold the addresses, has been realloced > to the size as per that returned in the variable len > from the initial GetAdapatersAddresses. Thus, it is possible to have a "race > condition" where > configuration changes are taking place simultaneously to > the NetworkInterface.getNetworkInterfaces() call > > The proposed change increases the initial size of the addresses buffer to > 4096, > and in the event of a failure increases the returned buffer size by this > amount again. > > Additionally, the update of the static variable bufsize, after the realloc, > was seen as potentially problematic > and has thread safe implications, so these updates have been removed. The > shared variable is not protected > by a mutex during read and write of variable. > > regards > Mark
