On Tue, 27 May 2025 11:50:14 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
>> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
>> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
>> https://github.com/openjdk
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:01:09 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
>> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
>> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
>> https://github.com/openjdk
> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25321
>
> This PR passes tier1, tier2, and tier3
On Tue, 27 May 2025 11:50:14 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
>> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
>> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
>> https://github.com/openjdk
> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25321
>
> This PR passes tier1, tier2, and tier3
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:05:13 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Per Minborg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address comments
>
> src/java.base/windows/classes/sun/nio/ch/WindowsAsynchronousFileChannelImpl.java
> line 669:
>
>>
> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25321
>
> This PR passes tier1, tier2, and tier3
On Mon, 26 May 2025 12:47:55 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> src/java.base/windows/classes/sun/nio/ch/WindowsAsynchronousFileChannelImpl.java
>> line 459:
>>
>>> 457:
>>> 458: boolean pending = false;
>>> 459: IOUtil.acquireScope(buf, true);
>>
>> Would you mind checking th
On Mon, 26 May 2025 14:22:10 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
>> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
>> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
>> https://github.com/openjdk
> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25321
>
> This PR passes tier1, tier2, and tier3
On Mon, 26 May 2025 07:51:32 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Per Minborg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix copyright year
>
> src/java.base/windows/classes/sun/nio/ch/WindowsAsynchronousFileChannelImpl.java
> line 459:
>
On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:42:39 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
>> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
>> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
>> https://github.com/openjdk
On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:42:39 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
>> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
>> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
>> https://github.com/openjdk
On Wed, 21 May 2025 17:55:17 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> src/java.base/windows/classes/sun/nio/ch/WindowsAsynchronousFileChannelImpl.java
>> line 459:
>>
>>> 457:
>>> 458: boolean pending = false;
>>> 459: NIO_ACCESS.acquireSession(buf);
>>
>> Here, we acquire the sess
On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:42:39 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
>> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
>> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
>> https://github.com/openjdk
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:01:46 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> Per Minborg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix copyright year
>
> src/java.base/windows/classes/sun/nio/ch/WindowsAsynchronousFileChannelImpl.java
> line 459:
>
>
> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25321
>
> This PR passes tier1, tier2, and tier3
> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25321
>
> This PR passes tier1, tier2, and tier3
On Wed, 21 May 2025 09:10:57 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > > A question for folks on security-dev. Are there tests for Cipher.doFinal,
> > > CipherSpi.engineUpdate, etc. that exercises cases where the ByteBuffer
> > > obtained from a memory segment?
> >
> >
> > I don't find any. We'd have to u
On Wed, 21 May 2025 05:00:16 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
> > A question for folks on security-dev. Are there tests for Cipher.doFinal,
> > CipherSpi.engineUpdate, etc. that exercises cases where the ByteBuffer
> > obtained from a memory segment?
>
> I don't find any. We'd have to update them to c
On Tue, 20 May 2025 13:38:11 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> A question for folks on security-dev. Are there tests for Cipher.doFinal,
> CipherSpi.engineUpdate, etc. that exercises cases where the ByteBuffer
> obtained from a memory segment?
I don't find any. We'd have to update them to cover the m
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:10:07 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
>> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
>> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
>> https://github.com/openjdk
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:10:07 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
>> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
>> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
>> https://github.com/openjdk
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:10:07 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
>> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
>> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
>> https://github.com/openjdk
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:10:07 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
>> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
>> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
>> https://github.com/openjdk
> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25321
>
> This PR passes tier1, tier2, and tier3
> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25321
>
> This PR passes tier1, tier2, and tier3
On Tue, 20 May 2025 12:54:06 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
>> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
>> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
>> https://github.com/openjdk
On Tue, 20 May 2025 12:54:06 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
>> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
>> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
>> https://github.com/openjdk
> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25321
>
> This PR passes tier1, tier2, and tier3
> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25321
>
> In some of the cases, this is not stri
On Tue, 20 May 2025 10:51:13 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk
This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
`DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25321
In some of the cases, this is not strictly needed
On Tue, 20 May 2025 10:51:13 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment
> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk
34 matches
Mail list logo
