8339133: [8u] Profiler crashes at guarantee(is_result_safe || is_in_asgct()): unsafe access to zombie method

[apangin]

When running AsyncGetCallTrace based profiler, JVM occasionally crashes on the guarantee at codeCache.cpp:287:

guarantee(is_result_safe || is_in_asgct(), "unsafe access to zombie method");

According to the stack trace, a thread is inside AsyncGetCallTrace at the moment of crash, but is_in_asgct() == false.

Current implementation of AsyncGetCallTrace is not reentrant, since it incorrectly resets in_asgct flag of the current thread. The fix is similar to JDK-8329103: in_asgct should be reset to previous value instead of false.

The fix is trivial and safe: it affects only AsyncGetCallTrace.

Testing: tier1, renaissance suite with async-profiler enabled

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• JDK-8339133 needs maintainer approval
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8339133: [8u] Profiler crashes at guarantee(is_result_safe || is_in_asgct()): unsafe access to zombie method (Bug - P4 - Requested)

Reviewers

• Thomas Stuefe (@tstuefe - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/568/head:pull/568
$ git checkout pull/568

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/568
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/568/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 568

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 568

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/568.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back apangin! 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]

❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated.
See the Progress checklist in the description for automated requirements.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 01: Full - Incremental (39d64536)
• 00: Full (03002200)

[openjdk]

@apangin Please do not rebase or force-push to an active PR as it invalidates existing review comments. Note for future reference, the bots always squash all changes into a single commit automatically as part of the integration. See OpenJDK Developers’ Guide for more information.

[tstuefe]

Hi Andrey, why do you submit this as a jdk 8 PR? Why not fix it upstream? Is it not an issue on JDK 11/17/21 etc?

[apangin]

@tstuefe The issue has been already fixed in upstream in JDK-8329103 and then backported to 21u, 17u and 11u.
I created a separate issue for 8u instead of calling it a backport because: (1) in jdk8u, there is no assertion mentioned in the title of JDK-8329103; (2) the patch for JDK-8329103 does not apply to jdk8u, the fix needs to be implemented differently, although the idea is essentially the same.

[tstuefe]

@tstuefe The issue has been already fixed in upstream in JDK-8329103 and then backported to 21u, 17u and 11u. I created a separate issue for 8u instead of calling it a backport because: (1) in jdk8u, there is no assertion mentioned in the title of JDK-8329103; (2) the patch for JDK-8329103 does not apply to jdk8u, the fix needs to be implemented differently, although the idea is essentially the same.

Okay, thank you for the explanation. Up to @gnu-andrew to decide if this is the right approach. Technically, the patch is fine.

[tstuefe]

LGTM

[openjdk]

⚠️ @apangin This change is now ready for you to apply for maintainer approval. This can be done directly in each associated issue or by using the /approval command.

[apangin]

/approval request Low risk yet important fix for profiling robustness. Affects only AsyncGetCallTrace code.

[openjdk]

@apangin
8339133: The approval request has been created successfully.

[bridgekeeper]

@apangin This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

[apangin]

Dear maintainers, is there anything else I need to do to move this PR forward?