On Wed, February 2, 2011 17:16, Andrew Haley wrote:
> The post on
> http://www.exploringbinary.com/java-hangs-when-converting-2-2250738585072012e-308/
This is hitting more and more media. e.g.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2011/02/07/java_denial_of_service_bug/
Since it seems to be a pretty se
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 20:02 +, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > The post on
> > http://www.exploringbinary.com/java-hangs-when-converting-2-2250738585072012e-308/
> >
> >
> > describes a (on first sight) trivial bug when parsing strings into
> > Java Double objects.
> Thanks for
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 20:35 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/8/21 Mark Wielaard :
> > On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 15:40 -0700, Mark Reinhold wrote:
> >> This change was integrated prematurely. I've rolled it back in the
> >> jdk7/tl/jdk repository.
&g
Hi Mark,
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 15:40 -0700, Mark Reinhold wrote:
> This change was integrated prematurely. I've rolled it back in the
> jdk7/tl/jdk repository.
If at all possible, please don't do this. It plays havoc with already
checked out repos and/or automatic clones/backups. You force peopl
Hi Florian,
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 15:44 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Sorry, but this is way too late to be relevant to my question (which
> is about b11, not b14): The CVE-2008-5345 fix was not listed
> explicitly in the b14 round of fixes, otherwise I'd have an isolated
> patch I could examine.
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 15:32 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Florian,
>
> On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 15:08 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Was the fix for Sun Alert 246387 (aka CVE-2008-5345) included in
> > OpenJDK 6b11?
>
> I believe CVE-2008-5345 is a catch all for
Hi Florian,
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 15:08 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Was the fix for Sun Alert 246387 (aka CVE-2008-5345) included in
> OpenJDK 6b11?
I believe CVE-2008-5345 is a catch all for a bundle of security update
patches:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2009-March/
Hi Sherman,
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 08:42 -0800, Xueming Shen wrote:
> No, you did not miss anything. The "original patch proposal " had not
> been sent to
> any of the community mailing lists, the "reviewed-by" is for the final
> code review,
> which was not sent to the mailing list as well, I
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 06:57 +, xueming.s...@sun.com wrote:
> Changeset: 57dc40ece164
> Author:sherman
> Date: 2008-12-17 22:50 -0800
> URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/jdk/rev/57dc40ece164
>
> 6496274: jar seems to use more CPU than it should
> Summary: boost jar cre
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 08:41 +0200, Christian Thalinger wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 22:53 -0500, Ole Ersoy wrote:
> > Hope this is the right list (If not please let me know). Anyone know
> > if com.sun.image.codec.jpeg.JPEGCodec is included in OpenJDK?
>
> It seems it is not. But IcedTe
Hi Rebecca,
Rebecca Searls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please advise how I can track down the cause of this fail.
>
> My Java version is:
>
> java version 1.5.0
> gij (GNU libcj) version 4.2.1 (Ubuntu 4.2.1ubuntu5)
You might have more feedback on the gcj mailinglist [EMAIL PROTECT
Hi Robert,
Robert Lougher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is getting a bit hostile for no reason Thinking about
> alignment gives an interesting solution.
>
> 1) Strings are not null-terminated
> 2) For most strings the alignment gives the VM room to terminate in
> place when GetStringCha
Hi Roman,
Roman Kennke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, I'm not talking about fixing the spec (I've read that bug report
> while searching for clarfication on the spec actually). When the spec
> doesn't tell _that_ the returned array is zero terminated, I think we
> should assume that it isn't (a
Krzysztof Żelechowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the specification gets fixed so that GSC result MUST be z-term,
> your VM will cease being conformant
> so it will be fixed and no additional buffers will be needed.
Eh, that doesn't seem right at all.
The specification currently doesn't gu
14 matches
Mail list logo
