8252871: fatal error: must own lock JvmtiThreadState_lock #60

robehn · 2020-09-07T14:14:28Z

When these two methods (set_frame_pop/clear_frame_pop) are called in a handshake the requesting thread will have lock the JvmtiThreadState_lock.
But the thread executing one of these in the handshake may not be the owner.
So we only check that JvmtiThreadState_lock is locked.

When verifying the callers to these methods I notice "clear_to_frame_pop" was unused, so instead of fixing it I remove it.

Passes testing locally, still running T3 and T7.

Now passed!

Progress

Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue
Change must be properly reviewed

Issues

JDK-8252871: fatal error: must own lock JvmtiThreadState_lock
JDK-8252816: JvmtiEnvThreadState::clear_to_frame_pop() is not used

Reviewers

Yasumasa Suenaga (@YaSuenag - Reviewer)
David Holmes (@dholmes-ora - Reviewer)

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/60/head:pull/60
$ git checkout pull/60

bridgekeeper · 2020-09-07T14:15:48Z

👋 Welcome back rehn! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

openjdk · 2020-09-07T14:16:37Z

@robehn The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request: hotspot serviceability.

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an RFR email will be sent to the corresponding mailing lists. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label (add|remove) "label" command.

mlbridge · 2020-09-07T18:56:32Z

Webrevs

00: Full (d96366c)

YaSuenag

Thanks for catching up this. Looks good.

openjdk · 2020-09-07T23:07:52Z

@robehn This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. In addition to the automated checks, the change must also fulfill all project specific requirements

After integration, the commit message will be:

8252871: fatal error: must own lock JvmtiThreadState_lock
8252816: JvmtiEnvThreadState::clear_to_frame_pop() is not used

Reviewed-by: ysuenaga, dholmes

If you would like to add a summary, use the /summary command.
To credit additional contributors, use the /contributor command.
To add additional solved issues, use the /issue command.

Since the source branch of this PR was last updated there have been 13 commits pushed to the master branch:

bf5da0c: 8252897: Minor .jcheck/conf update
7600274: 8252859: Inconsistent use of alpha in class AbsSeq
4fb1980: 8252853: AArch64: gc/shenandoah/TestVerifyJCStress.java fails intermittently with C1
73ba3ae: 8252500: ZGC on aarch64: Unable to allocate heap for certain Linux kernel configurations
5dd1ead: 8252767: URLConnection.setRequestProperty throws IllegalAccessError
2cceeed: 8166554: Avoid compilation blocking in OverloadCompileQueueTest.java
188b0bc: 8252868: Clean up unused function from G1MMUTracker
891886b: 8252887: Zero VM is broken after JDK-8252661
7686e87: 8250968: Symlinks attributes not preserved when using jarsigner on zip files
8d6d43c: 8251193: bin/idea.sh is generating wrong folder definitions for JVMCI modules
... and 3 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/e0c8d4420c8e1a84581927cf77314498b8e5aa52...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid automatic rebasing, please merge master into your branch, and then specify the current head hash when integrating, like this: /integrate bf5da0c778f2cbc8c1b8568ca16c4bf51f7972b5.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

mlbridge · 2020-09-08T00:12:45Z

Mailing list message from David Holmes on hotspot-dev:

Hi Robbin,

On 8/09/2020 4:56 am, Robbin Ehn wrote:

When these two methods (set_frame_pop/clear_frame_pop) are called in a handshake the requesting thread will have lock
the JvmtiThreadState_lock. But the thread executing one of these in the handshake may not be the owner.

Ouch! We continue to get bitten by the fact the executor of a handshake
operation is not known a-priori. :(

So we only check that JvmtiThreadState_lock is locked.

That avoids the problem but it is not really a sufficient check - we
need to know that it is the handshaker thread that owns the lock and
that it acquired it purely for the purpose of this handshake operation!

More importantly this issue shows that the locking code is in fact
incorrect. We are on very dangerous ground if we are going to allow
locks to be "proxied" in this fashion! This is akin to reintroducing
"sneaky locks"!

If a handshake operation can be executed by either the target thread or
the handshaker thread, and locks are required, then they will have to be
acquired in the context of the handshake operation. If we can't do that
because of potential deadlocks in the handshake mechanism then I feel
that handshakes have a serious flaw that needs to be rectified. Perhaps
we need a way to force the operation to be executed by the handshaker so
that they can setup the right execution environment prior to the handshake?

When verifying the callers to these methods I notice "clear_to_frame_pop" was unused, so instead of fixing it I remove
it.

There is already a bug for that:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8252816

so if this proceeds you should add that issue to the PR.

Thanks,
David
-----

robehn · 2020-09-08T07:36:35Z

Hi David,

When these two methods (set_frame_pop/clear_frame_pop) are called in a handshake the requesting thread will have lock
the JvmtiThreadState_lock. But the thread executing one of these in the handshake may not be the owner.

Ouch! We continue to get bitten by the fact the executor of a handshake
operation is not known a-priori. :(

We could add this. But I would prefer not doing it in this bug fix.

So we only check that JvmtiThreadState_lock is locked.

That avoids the problem but it is not really a sufficient check - we
need to know that it is the handshaker thread that owns the lock and
that it acquired it purely for the purpose of this handshake operation!

Right now we know that because I traced the code :)

As I said I can make the requesting thread known to execution thread,
but I would really prefer not doing that in this bug fix.

More importantly this issue shows that the locking code is in fact
incorrect. We are on very dangerous ground if we are going to allow
locks to be "proxied" in this fashion! This is akin to reintroducing
"sneaky locks"!

A problem is that we use a safepoiting global lock to protect per thread resource.
The way we get around this with safepoints is:
"assert_locked_or_safepoint" (assert may be passed by a non-JavaThread or JavaThread in blocked/native without lock during a safepoint (safepoint + VM thread would fix that))
Which have this in it:
// see if invoker of VM operation owns it
VM_Operation* op = VMThread::vm_operation();
if (op != NULL && op->calling_thread() == lock->owner()) return;

So we already have proxied locks and in other cases just avoiding them (by just checking if at safepoint).

And as I said a few times now, I said I can make the requesting thread known to execution thread,
but I would really prefer not doing that in this bug fix.

If a handshake operation can be executed by either the target thread or
the handshaker thread, and locks are required, then they will have to be
acquired in the context of the handshake operation. If we can't do that
because of potential deadlocks in the handshake mechanism then I feel
that handshakes have a serious flaw that needs to be rectified. Perhaps
we need a way to force the operation to be executed by the handshaker so
that they can setup the right execution environment prior to the handshake?

The problem is that it's a safepointing lock.
Only executing the handshake by requester is an interesting idea, I'll investigate that.

When verifying the callers to these methods I notice "clear_to_frame_pop" was unused, so instead of fixing it I remove
it.

There is already a bug for that:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8252816

so if this proceeds you should add that issue to the PR.

Ok, I'll do that.

Thanks for having a look, let me know howto proceed.

Thanks,
David

robehn · 2020-09-08T07:38:55Z

/issue add JDK-8252816

openjdk · 2020-09-08T07:39:25Z

@robehn
Adding additional issue to issue list: 8252816: JvmtiEnvThreadState::clear_to_frame_pop() is not used.

mlbridge · 2020-09-08T07:59:10Z

Mailing list message from Robbin Ehn on hotspot-dev:

Hi David, our mail service did the wrong thing here.

This was a reply to your comment, so you should have been in To-field,
this quote above "Hi David" should not have been here, and this was a
reply your mail (via github comment).

Thanks, Robbin

On 2020-09-08 09:39, Robbin Ehn wrote:

mlbridge · 2020-09-08T10:43:56Z

Mailing list message from David Holmes on hotspot-dev:

Hi Robbin,

On 8/09/2020 5:39 pm, Robbin Ehn wrote:

Hi David,

When these two methods (set_frame_pop/clear_frame_pop) are called in a handshake the requesting thread will have lock
the JvmtiThreadState_lock. But the thread executing one of these in the handshake may not be the owner.

Ouch! We continue to get bitten by the fact the executor of a handshake
operation is not known a-priori. :(

We could add this. But I would prefer not doing it in this bug fix.

Okay we can put in the current proposed fix to get the test working
again. Please file a new bug to fix the underlying locking problem.

So we only check that JvmtiThreadState_lock is locked.

That avoids the problem but it is not really a sufficient check - we
need to know that it is the handshaker thread that owns the lock and
that it acquired it purely for the purpose of this handshake operation!

Right now we know that because I traced the code :)

I'm sure you get my point though. :)

As I said I can make the requesting thread known to execution thread,
but I would really prefer not doing that in this bug fix.

More importantly this issue shows that the locking code is in fact
incorrect. We are on very dangerous ground if we are going to allow
locks to be "proxied" in this fashion! This is akin to reintroducing
"sneaky locks"!

A problem is that we use a safepoiting global lock to protect per thread resource.
The way we get around this with safepoints is:
"assert_locked_or_safepoint" (assert may be passed by a non-JavaThread or JavaThread in blocked/native without lock
during a safepoint (safepoint + VM thread would fix that)) Which have this in it:
// see if invoker of VM operation owns it
VM_Operation* op = VMThread::vm_operation();
if (op != NULL && op->calling_thread() == lock->owner()) return;

So we already have proxied locks and in other cases just avoiding them (by just checking if at safepoint).

Okay ... we know that the VMThread and safepoint VMops are special, and
always have been special, and people absolutely loathe the things we did
in supporting that special-ness and we (well you, Erik, Patricio, Dan)
have been working hard to get rid of a lot of that special code. So I
can't accept an argument that it is okay to take VMThread/VMop special
behaviour (e.g. lock proxying) and now spread it around to make other
special cases.

And as I said a few times now, I said I can make the requesting thread known to execution thread,
but I would really prefer not doing that in this bug fix.

Understood.

I have a general concern with locking in relation to handshakes, that we
cannot actually get rid of all the special handling that pertained to
safepoints (safepoint-check-always/never, lock ranking) just because we
now use handshakes. We have the same kinds of deadlock concerns if a
handshake operation tries to take a lock and might block the thread. So
same problem as safepoints and locks but no supporting code to try and
help us with that.

So if we cannot simply grab the necessary locks as part of the handshake
operation, then we need a way to ensure locking correctness prior to the
op - and the simplest seems to be that the handshaker does the necessary
locking and the handshake mechanism allows us to ensure the handshaker
executes the operation not the target.

Thanks,
David
-----

robehn · 2020-09-08T11:14:20Z

Hi David,

Okay we can put in the current proposed fix to get the test working
again. Please file a new bug to fix the underlying locking problem.

I created https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8252902
Please feel free to add sub-task, edit or change if I missed anything.

Thanks, Robbin

So we only check that JvmtiThreadState_lock is locked.

That avoids the problem but it is not really a sufficient check - we
need to know that it is the handshaker thread that owns the lock and
that it acquired it purely for the purpose of this handshake operation!

Right now we know that because I traced the code :)

I'm sure you get my point though. :)

As I said I can make the requesting thread known to execution thread,
but I would really prefer not doing that in this bug fix.

More importantly this issue shows that the locking code is in fact
incorrect. We are on very dangerous ground if we are going to allow
locks to be "proxied" in this fashion! This is akin to reintroducing
"sneaky locks"!

A problem is that we use a safepoiting global lock to protect per thread resource.
The way we get around this with safepoints is:
"assert_locked_or_safepoint" (assert may be passed by a non-JavaThread or JavaThread in blocked/native without lock
during a safepoint (safepoint + VM thread would fix that)) Which have this in it:
// see if invoker of VM operation owns it
VM_Operation* op = VMThread::vm_operation();
if (op != NULL && op->calling_thread() == lock->owner()) return;
So we already have proxied locks and in other cases just avoiding them (by just checking if at safepoint).

Okay ... we know that the VMThread and safepoint VMops are special, and
always have been special, and people absolutely loathe the things we did
in supporting that special-ness and we (well you, Erik, Patricio, Dan)
have been working hard to get rid of a lot of that special code. So I
can't accept an argument that it is okay to take VMThread/VMop special
behaviour (e.g. lock proxying) and now spread it around to make other
special cases.

And as I said a few times now, I said I can make the requesting thread known to execution thread,
but I would really prefer not doing that in this bug fix.

Understood.

I have a general concern with locking in relation to handshakes, that we
cannot actually get rid of all the special handling that pertained to
safepoints (safepoint-check-always/never, lock ranking) just because we
now use handshakes. We have the same kinds of deadlock concerns if a
handshake operation tries to take a lock and might block the thread. So
same problem as safepoints and locks but no supporting code to try and
help us with that.

So if we cannot simply grab the necessary locks as part of the handshake
operation, then we need a way to ensure locking correctness prior to the
op - and the simplest seems to be that the handshaker does the necessary
locking and the handshake mechanism allows us to ensure the handshaker
executes the operation not the target.

Thanks,
David

robehn · 2020-09-08T13:44:34Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2020-09-08T13:45:28Z

@robehn Since your change was applied there have been 13 commits pushed to the master branch:

bf5da0c: 8252897: Minor .jcheck/conf update
7600274: 8252859: Inconsistent use of alpha in class AbsSeq
4fb1980: 8252853: AArch64: gc/shenandoah/TestVerifyJCStress.java fails intermittently with C1
73ba3ae: 8252500: ZGC on aarch64: Unable to allocate heap for certain Linux kernel configurations
5dd1ead: 8252767: URLConnection.setRequestProperty throws IllegalAccessError
2cceeed: 8166554: Avoid compilation blocking in OverloadCompileQueueTest.java
188b0bc: 8252868: Clean up unused function from G1MMUTracker
891886b: 8252887: Zero VM is broken after JDK-8252661
7686e87: 8250968: Symlinks attributes not preserved when using jarsigner on zip files
8d6d43c: 8251193: bin/idea.sh is generating wrong folder definitions for JVMCI modules
... and 3 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/e0c8d4420c8e1a84581927cf77314498b8e5aa52...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit 704f784.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

We should use interface as_virtual/as_escaped after alias refactor. Co-authored-by: Xin Liu <xxinliu@amazon.com>

* Update LICENSE file * The experimental version is aimed to refactor the tool * verificationType mistakenly added to source code is renamed to type * Adapted mvn bindings to at8 * Added tests to represent bad stream handling in jdec and correctone in jdis * Made jdec to write output to proper toolOutput instead of bad logOutput * 7903208: [Jasm] Add support for generics (the Signature attribute) * 7902888: Excess entries in BootstrapMethods with the same bsm, bsmKind, bsmArgs * Replaced hardcoded String[] args, by varargs String... where reasonable Once the "tool" mandatory array memebr was removed from each tool's main method, and considering calls from libraries, and form tests where the argument is very often just one file, or more readable "a1", a2"... without new String[]{} declaration, changed those String[] enforcing headers to more benevolent String... * Intentionally removed ACC_SUPER class modifier was causing hotswap to fail When jasm's disasm, modify, asm cycle output binary was used for class hotswap, remote JDK was not accepting it with java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: class redefinition failed: attempted to change the class modifiers beacuse of ommited supoer keyword (although it have already no real reason) This patch is returning the kwyword without conditions, when it was included in original bytecode * extended test to verify that super is not used always if super is not in source code, then it is not in disambled code * 7903248: jasm: FieldData.ConstantValue holds undefined reference to CP while writing fields to a class * Added support for stdin in jdis * stdin is now read also by jasm,jcod,jdec more tests needed * Removed jdis specific missleading provide method * Tool output moved where it belongs to commons * Removed duplicated declaration of ArrayList<ToolInput> fileList * Changed requireNonNull message in getDataInputStream * Added one more abstraction layer providing highly reusable byte[] based input * Properly exiting after verson is printed * Stream based inputs are now drained once needed, not during construction * reworked stdin read to be initiated by - As a side effect, files and stdin can be read together remove dduplicated code in tests by getting class in compile time added tests and adapted older to new behavior * added tests if asmtools assmble itself into valid bytecode Added two set of tests jdec->jcoder->load jdis->jasm->load Both in two variants, with -g, and without Both jdec->jcoder->load works fine Both jdis->jasm->load now fails on three files from 278: /org/openjdk/asmtools/jasm/JasmEnvironment$InputFile.class, /org/openjdk/asmtools/jcoder/Jcoder.class, /org/openjdk/asmtools/jasm/Parser.class Fail looks valid. Unluckily, the issue where -g disassembled and back assembled com.google.gson.Gson produce invalid bytecode was not hit The class BruteForceHelper is reusable for any set of classes * Naive fix for enforced dot.suffix * repalce stdout by configurable object This checkout is not buildable, but server as showcase for issue with dual logging for compilers * Replaced dualstream logger by wrapper so it can be later made fully customisable * Enabled shared i18n properties via reused asmtools/i18n.props * All four tools now use neww ToolOutput output As a consequence, all four tools by by default prints to stdout, and honours -d properly * Fixed typo which casued behavior regression found by unittests * Refatoed tests so they can harbour resources in maven way * Moved all logging to stderr. use -dls to return original behavior The -dls switch is oging to be removed once stderr is properl adapted * Implemented library-like input and output This commit is adding byte[]/String input/output clasases for direct library usage. Added tests, advertising how simple is usage of those inputs/outputs There are two hunks, which fixes issues ovberlooked in previous refactorings: - traceln now correctly calls getOutputs - jdec now uses proper logger insted of accidental stderr * Enabled -g for jcoder to be set from external code * Temporary workaround around tests being order-sensitive As -g is now making some disassmebld code not asemble-able back, and order of tests is not deterministic, and Options are static, thus if -g is now set in some test, it is not unset in other tests. Real fix is to move Options out of static context to context of environment as it is done for jcoder. * Added github actions Just for record for "act" for local testing. To run with podman based distros, several steps are ncessary. See nektos/act#303 ; especially * nektos/act#303 (comment) * and nektos/act#303 (comment) * the bind and socket eg: systemctl enable --now --user podman.socket systemctl start --user podman.socket export DOCKER_HOST=unix://$XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/podman/podman.sock ../act/bin/act --bind --container-daemon-socket $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/podman/podman.sock To rerun the build on clean env, you have to stop and start the podman socket again Without explicit 'mvn test' the tests are not running. Not sure why * 7902888: Excess entries in BootstrapMethods with the same bsm, bsmKind, bsmArgs * Fixed issue when jasm produced only one file from source with multiple ones Added tests for this issue Added test veryfying that the jcoder is not affected * 7903401: jtreg fails if set of jdk tests process jasm,jdis files with defects * 7903402: jdis: tool writes incorrect StackMapTable if the first same_frame has type 0 (openjdk#51) * 7902888: Excess entries in BootstrapMethods with the same bsm, bsmKind, bsmArgs * 7903401: jtreg fails if set of jdk tests process jasm,jdis files with defects * 7903402: jdis: tool writes incorrect StackMapTable if the first same_frame has type 0 * 7902888: Excess entries in BootstrapMethods with the same bsm, bsmKind, bsmArgs * Refactored new ToolInput/Outputs so they reside in own packages and not in original interfaces (openjdk#53) * Refactored new ToolInput/Outputs so they reside in own packages and not in original interfaces * Removed unused imports * Added licence headers * Added ajvadoc description to three main interfaces. * Removed unnecessary guard condition before changging \ to / for fqn * Replaced "\n" by System.lineSeparator() * Used better names for highlighted abbrevations * 7903405: compiler does not warn about instruction arguments that exceed allowed limits (openjdk#54) * 7902888: Excess entries in BootstrapMethods with the same bsm, bsmKind, bsmArgs * 7903401: jtreg fails if set of jdk tests process jasm,jdis files with defects * 7903402: jdis: tool writes incorrect StackMapTable if the first same_frame has type 0 * 7902888: Excess entries in BootstrapMethods with the same bsm, bsmKind, bsmArgs * 7903405: compiler does not warn about instruction arguments that exceed allowed limits * 7903405: compiler does not warn about instruction arguments that exceed allowed limits * Delete ToolOutput.java * Fixed junit test for CODETOOLS-7903405 (openjdk#56) * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 (openjdk#57) * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 * Fix tabs * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 (Part II) (openjdk#58) * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 * Fix tabs * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 * CODETOOLS-7903506: Asmtools: jdis prints BootstrapMethod attribute if detailed output is off (openjdk#59) * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 * Fix tabs * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 * 7903506: Asmtools: jdis prints BootstrapMethod attribute if detailed output is off * 7903509: jcoder, jasm: add option to override class file version in source file(s) (openjdk#60) * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 * Fix tabs * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 * 7903509: jcoder, jasm: add option to override class file version in source file(s) * CODETOOLS-7903531: jdis: Suppress printing comments by adding an option (openjdk#61) * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 * Fix tabs * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 * 7903458: Umbrella: Preparations for switching to Asmtools 8.0 * 7903531: jdis: Suppress printing comments by adding an option --------- Co-authored-by: Jiri Vanek <jvanek@redhat.com>

) * Add an option (-p) to gradually increase the allocation rate over the given time period * Extract constant for nanos per second

Fix assert and removed unsed methods

d96366c

openjdk bot added serviceability serviceability-dev@openjdk.org hotspot hotspot-dev@openjdk.org labels Sep 7, 2020

robehn marked this pull request as ready for review September 7, 2020 18:53

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Sep 7, 2020

YaSuenag approved these changes Sep 7, 2020

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Sep 7, 2020

dholmes-ora approved these changes Sep 8, 2020

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot closed this Sep 8, 2020

openjdk bot added integrated Pull request has been integrated and removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Sep 8, 2020

robehn deleted the 8252871-wrong-assert branch September 8, 2020 13:47

yftsai mentioned this pull request Feb 17, 2022

8005885: enhance PrintCodeCache to print more data #7389

Closed

3 tasks

caojoshua pushed a commit to caojoshua/jdk that referenced this pull request Jul 26, 2023

Fix dacapo/avrora (openjdk#60)

81d7de6

We should use interface as_virtual/as_escaped after alias refactor. Co-authored-by: Xin Liu <xxinliu@amazon.com>

pf0n pushed a commit to pf0n/jdk that referenced this pull request Jul 9, 2025

Add an option (-p) to gradually increase the allocation rate (openjdk#60

939f99c

) * Add an option (-p) to gradually increase the allocation rate over the given time period * Extract constant for nanos per second

8252871: fatal error: must own lock JvmtiThreadState_lock #60

8252871: fatal error: must own lock JvmtiThreadState_lock #60

Uh oh!

Conversation

robehn commented Sep 7, 2020 • edited by openjdk bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Progress

Issues

Reviewers

Download

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Sep 7, 2020

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Sep 7, 2020

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Sep 7, 2020

Webrevs

Uh oh!

YaSuenag left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Sep 7, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Sep 8, 2020

Uh oh!

robehn commented Sep 8, 2020

Thanks, David

Uh oh!

robehn commented Sep 8, 2020

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Sep 8, 2020

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Sep 8, 2020

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Sep 8, 2020

Uh oh!

robehn commented Sep 8, 2020

Thanks, David

Uh oh!

robehn commented Sep 8, 2020

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Sep 8, 2020

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

robehn commented Sep 7, 2020 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

openjdk bot commented Sep 7, 2020 •

edited

Loading

Thanks,
David

Thanks,
David