Michael McMahon wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/7088747/webrev.1/
There are no changes in the first two files, only Socket.java
Looks much better. I assume that the check if address is null can be
removed at L423.
-Alan
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/7088747/webrev.1/
There are no changes in the first two files, only Socket.java
- Michael.
On 09/09/11 14:08, Alan Bateman wrote:
Michael McMahon wrote:
Yes, the regression tests picked that up as well. Well spotted.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/7
Alan,
It didn't occur to me to use that new multi-catch construct.
I've actually just committed the previous version. But, I think
this is clearer so I'd like to make this change under a new CR.
- Michael.
On 09/09/11 14:08, Alan Bateman wrote:
Michael McMahon wrote:
Yes, the regression test
Michael McMahon wrote:
Yes, the regression tests picked that up as well. Well spotted.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/7085981/webrev.5/
DatagramSocket looks okay to me. An alternative might be:
try {
:
} catch (SocketException | IllegalArgumentException | SecurityException e) {
clo
On 08/09/11 21:40, Alan Bateman wrote:
Michael McMahon wrote:
Sigh. Hopefully this is the last webrev.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/7085981/webrev.4/
Socket.java changed from last one. If there's no objection
I'll push this version.
- Michael.
DatagramSocket(SocketAddress) creates an
Michael McMahon wrote:
Sigh. Hopefully this is the last webrev.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/7085981/webrev.4/
Socket.java changed from last one. If there's no objection
I'll push this version.
- Michael.
DatagramSocket(SocketAddress) creates an unbound socket if the parameter
is null
t;<
if (localAddr != null)
bind(localAddr);
if (address != null)
connect(address);
} catch (IOException e) {
close();
throw e;
}
}
-Original Message-
From: Michael McMahon [mailto:michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 4:11 AM
To: chris hegarty
Cc: Salter, Th
Thursday, September 08, 2011 4:11 AM
To: chris hegarty
Cc: Salter, Thomas A; net-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Datagram socket leak
On 07/09/11 21:54, chris hegarty wrote:
On 07/09/2011 17:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
Hi all,
I've posted a webrev for this at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/
el McMahon [mailto:michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 4:11 AM
To: chris hegarty
Cc: Salter, Thomas A; net-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Datagram socket leak
On 07/09/11 21:54, chris hegarty wrote:
> On 07/09/2011 17:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Hi all,
On 09/ 8/11 12:12 PM, Michael McMahon wrote:
.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/7085981/webrev.3/
The changes look good to me.
-Chris.
Thanks,
Michael.
On 07/09/11 21:54, chris hegarty wrote:
On 07/09/2011 17:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
Hi all,
I've posted a webrev for this at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/7085981/webrev.1/
After checking Socket and ServerSocket, I believe they are not actually
affected by this issue. The IllegalArgum
On 07/09/11 21:54, chris hegarty wrote:
On 07/09/2011 17:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
Hi all,
I've posted a webrev for this at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/7085981/webrev.1/
After checking Socket and ServerSocket, I believe they are not actually
affected by this issue. The IllegalArgum
On 07/09/2011 17:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
Hi all,
I've posted a webrev for this at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/7085981/webrev.1/
After checking Socket and ServerSocket, I believe they are not actually
affected by this issue. The IllegalArgumentExceptions are thrown
before the
imp
for this bug as well.
Michael.
-Original Message-
From: Michael McMahon [mailto:michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:47 PM
To: Salter, Thomas A
Cc: net-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Datagram socket leak
Thomas,
Thanks for pointing this out. We overlooked this in
---
From: Michael McMahon [mailto:michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:47 PM
To: Salter, Thomas A
Cc: net-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Datagram socket leak
Thomas,
Thanks for pointing this out. We overlooked this in the recent change in
this
area. One thing though
c: net-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Datagram socket leak
Thomas,
Thanks for pointing this out. We overlooked this in the recent change in
this
area. One thing though, in the second change to DatagramSocket we can't
just check for isBound() since the socket might legitimately be unbound
(bindaddr
if( !isBound() )
<close();
<}
-Original Message-
From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 2:33 PM
To: Salter, Thomas A
Cc: net-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Datagram socket leak
Ah ok. I finally get it.
try {
167,170d165
< } finally {
< if( !isBound() )
< close();
< }
-Original Message-
From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 2:33 PM
To: Salter, Thomas A
Cc: net-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subjec
ows.
Tom
-Original Message-
From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 2:33 PM
To: Salter, Thomas A
Cc: net-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Datagram socket leak
Ah ok. I finally get it.
In which case I think you original changes should be f
try {
getImpl().bind(port, iaddr);
} catch (SocketException e) {
getImpl().close();
throw e;
}
bound = true;
}
Tom.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 1:56 PM
se();
throw e;
}
bound = true;
}
Tom.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 1:56 PM
To: Salter, Thomas A
Cc: net-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Datagram socket leak
[take two!]
Tom,
Thi
[take two!]
Tom,
This specific area of code was changed recently due to CR 7035556 [1],
changeset [2], and this issue was discussed during the code review [3].
Essentially, bind() already closes the impl internally before throwing
the exception. Does this resolve the issue for you? Or do you
I haven't looked at the code in question in detail, but from the code
snippet, won't the finally close the socket ( since it is not isBound )?
-Chris.
On 08/29/11 03:27 PM, Salter, Thomas A wrote:
There appears to be a socket leak in both DatagramSocket and
MulticastSocket constructors. Both c
There appears to be a socket leak in both DatagramSocket and MulticastSocket
constructors. Both classes have constructors that create a socket and then
attempt to bind. The bind can fail with a variety of exceptions none of which
are caught by the constructor. Thus, the actual system socket t
24 matches
Mail list logo
