thanks for the review Chris
regards
Mark
On 05/03/2015 14:09, Chris Hegarty wrote:
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
