--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/hotspot/test/runtime/7116786/Test7116786.java Mon Aug 06 15:54:45 2012 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,486 @@
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2012, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
+ * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
+ *
+ * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
+ * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only, as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ *
+ * This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
+ * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
+ * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License
+ * version 2 for more details (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that
+ * accompanied this code).
+ *
+ * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License version
+ * 2 along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
+ * Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.
+ *
+ * Please contact Oracle, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA
+ * or visit www.oracle.com if you need additional information or have any
+ * questions.
+ *
+ */
+
+/*
+ * @test Test7116786
+ * @summary verify that VerifyError messages are as expected
+ * @library testcases.jar
+ * @run main/othervm -Xverify:all Test7116786
+ */
+
+
+/**
+ * This class contains information regarding when a VerifyError is thrown
+ * in the verifier. Most of the data is informational-only, and can be
+ * used to track down where and why VerifyErrors are thrown. As such it
+ * is possible the information may go out-of-date.
+ *
+ * The only fields used for the purpose of testing is the 'caseName' and
+ * the 'message'. The 'caseName' corresponds to a classfile which exhibits
+ * the VerifyError, and the 'message' is a regular expression which we expect
+ * to match the verify error message. If the 'message' doesn't match what
+ * we expect, it warrents investigation to see if we are still triggering
+ * the VerifyError that we expect. It could simply just be that the message
+ * changed, which is fine.
+ *
+ * Some cases are not testable, either because the code is probably unreachable
+ * or the test classfile would be too onerous to create. These cases are
+ * marked with 'testable' == false, and the test runner will skip them.
+ */
+class Case {
+ private String caseName; // Name of the case
+ private String file; // Source file where VerifyError is thrown
+ private String location; // enclosing function or switch case
+ private String description; // What causes this VerifyError
+ private String message; // The VerifyError message used.
+
+ private boolean testable; // Whether this case is testable or not.
+
+ public Case(String caseName, String file, boolean testable,
+ String location, String description, String message) {
+ this.caseName = caseName;
+ this.file = file;
+ this.testable = testable;
+ this.location = location;
+ this.description = description;
+ this.message = message;
+ }
+
+ String getCaseName() { return this.caseName; }
+ String getFile() { return this.file; }
+ String getLocation() { return this.location; }
+ String getDescription() { return this.description; }
+ String getMessage() { return this.message; }
+
+ boolean isTestable() { return this.testable; }
+}
+
+/**
+ * These are the locations in the source code where VerifyErrors are thrown
+ * as of today, 2012/07/18. These may change as the verification code is
+ * modified, which is ok. This test is trying to provide coverage for all
+ * VerifyErrors (just to make sure there are no crashes) and it's probably
+ * not necessary to update it every time the VM changes.
+ */
+class VerifyErrorCases {
+ public static final Case[] cases = {
+
+ new Case("case00", "stackMapFrame.cpp", true, "pop_stack_ex",
+ "stack underflow",
+ "Operand stack underflow"),
+
+ new Case("case01", "stackMapFrame.cpp", true, "pop_stack_ex",
+ "stack pop not assignable to expected",
+ "Bad type on operand stack"),
+
+ new Case("case02", "stackMapFrame.cpp", true, "get_local",
+ "local index out-of-bounds",
+ "Local variable table overflow"),
+
+ new Case("case03", "stackMapFrame.cpp", true, "get_local",
+ "local not assignable to expected",
+ "Bad local variable type"),
+
+ new Case("case04", "stackMapFrame.cpp", true, "get_local_2",
+ "local index out-of-bounds [type2]",
+ "get long/double overflows locals"),
+
+ new Case("case05", "stackMapFrame.cpp", true, "get_local_2",
+ "local not assignabled to expected [type2]",
+ "Bad local variable type"),
+
+ /* Unreachable: Can't split long/double on stack */
+ new Case("case06", "stackMapFrame.cpp", false, "get_local_2",
+ "local second-word not assignabled to expected",
+ "Bad local variable type"),
+
+ new Case("case07", "stackMapFrame.cpp", true, "set_local",
+ "local index out-of-bounds",
+ "Local variable table overflow"),
+
+ new Case("case08", "stackMapFrame.cpp", true, "set_local_2",
+ "local index out-of-bounds [type2]",
+ "Local variable table overflow"),
+
+ new Case("case09", "stackMapFrame.hpp", true, "push_stack",
+ "stack overflow",
+ "Operand stack overflow"),
+
+ new Case("case10", "stackMapFrame.hpp", true, "push_stack_2",
+ "stack overflow [type2]",
+ "Operand stack overflow"),
+
+ new Case("case11", "stackMapFrame.hpp", true, "pop_stack",
+ "stack underflow",
+ "Operand stack underflow"),
+
+ new Case("case12", "stackMapTable.cpp", true, "StackMapTable ctor",
+ "stackmap offset beyond code size",
+ "StackMapTable error: bad offset"),
+
+ new Case("case13", "stackMapTable.cpp", true, "match_stackmap",
+ "no stackmap frame at expected location",
+ "Expecting a stackmap frame at branch target "),
+
+ new Case("case14", "stackMapTable.cpp", true, "check_jump_target",
+ "no stackmap frame at jump location or bad jump",
+ "Inconsistent stackmap frames at branch target "),
+
+ new Case("case15", "stackMapTable.cpp", true, "check_new_object",
+ "backward jump with uninit",
+ "Uninitialized object exists on backward branch "),
+
+ /* Unreachable: wide instructions verified during bytecode analysis */
+ new Case("case16", "verifier.cpp", false, "loop header",
+ "bad op in wide instruction",
+ "Bad wide instruction"),
+
+ new Case("case17", "verifier.cpp", true, "case iaload",
+ "TOS not X array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in iaload"),
+
+ new Case("case18", "verifier.cpp", true, "case baload",
+ "TOS not X array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in baload"),
+
+ new Case("case19", "verifier.cpp", true, "case caload",
+ "TOS not X array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in caload"),
+
+ new Case("case20", "verifier.cpp", true, "case saload",
+ "TOS not X array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in saload"),
+
+ new Case("case21", "verifier.cpp", true, "case laload",
+ "TOS not X array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in laload"),
+
+ new Case("case22", "verifier.cpp", true, "case faload",
+ "TOS not X array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in faload"),
+
+ new Case("case23", "verifier.cpp", true, "case daload",
+ "TOS not X array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in daload"),
+
+ new Case("case24", "verifier.cpp", true, "case aaload",
+ "TOS not X array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in aaload"),
+
+ new Case("case25", "verifier.cpp", true, "case iastore",
+ "TOS not int array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in iastore"),
+
+ new Case("case26", "verifier.cpp", true, "case bastore",
+ "TOS not byte array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in bastore"),
+
+ new Case("case27", "verifier.cpp", true, "case castore",
+ "TOS not char array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in castore"),
+
+ new Case("case28", "verifier.cpp", true, "case sastore",
+ "TOS not short array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in sastore"),
+
+ new Case("case29", "verifier.cpp", true, "case lastore",
+ "TOS not long array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in lastore"),
+
+ new Case("case30", "verifier.cpp", true, "case fastore",
+ "TOS not float array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in fastore"),
+
+ new Case("case31", "verifier.cpp", true, "case dastore",
+ "TOS not double array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in dastore"),
+
+ new Case("case32", "verifier.cpp", true, "case aastore",
+ "TOS not object array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in aastore"),
+
+ /* Unreachable: In order to hit this case, we would need a
+ * category2_1st at TOS which is not possible. */
+ new Case("case33", "verifier.cpp", false, "case pop2",
+ "TOS is category2_1st (would split)",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in pop2"),
+
+ /* Unreachable: In order to hit this case, we would need a
+ * category2_1st at stack depth 2 with category_1 on TOS which is not
+ * possible. */
+ new Case("case34", "verifier.cpp", false, "case dup_x2",
+ "TOS-1 is category2_1st (would split)",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in dup_x2"),
+
+ /* Unreachable: In order to hit this case, we would need a
+ * category2_1st at TOS which is not possible. */
+ new Case("case35", "verifier.cpp", false, "case dup2",
+ "TOS-1 is category2_1st (would split)",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in dup2"),
+
+ /* Unreachable: In order to hit this case, we would need a
+ * category2_1st at TOS which is not possible. */
+ new Case("case36", "verifier.cpp", false, "case dup2_x1",
+ "TOS-1 is category2_1st (would split)",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in dup2_x1"),
+
+ /* Unreachable: In order to hit this case, we would need a
+ * category2_1st at TOS which is not possible. */
+ new Case("case37", "verifier.cpp", false, "case dup2_x2",
+ "TOS-1 is category2_1st (would split)",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in dup2_x2"),
+
+ /* Unreachable: In order to hit this case, we would need a
+ * category2_1st at stack depth 3 with either 2 category_1 or 1
+ * category_2 on TOS, which is not possible. */
+ new Case("case38", "verifier.cpp", false, "case dup2_x2",
+ "TOS-3 is category2_1st (would split)",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in dup2_x2"),
+
+ new Case("case39", "verifier.cpp", true, "case return",
+ "return type of method is not void",
+ "Method expects a return value"),
+
+ new Case("case40", "verifier.cpp", true, "case return",
+ "return with uninitialized this ",
+ "Constructor must call super() or this() before return"),
+
+ new Case("case41", "verifier.cpp", true, "case new",
+ "cp index not a class type",
+ "Illegal new instruction"),
+
+ new Case("case42", "verifier.cpp", true, "case arraylength",
+ "TOS is not an array",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in arraylength"),
+
+ new Case("case43", "verifier.cpp", true, "case multianewarray",
+ "CP index does not refer to array type",
+ "Illegal constant pool index in multianewarray instruction"),
+
+ new Case("case44", "verifier.cpp", true, "case multianewarray",
+ "Bad dimension (<1) or does not match CP signature",
+ "Illegal dimension in multianewarray instruction: "),
+
+ new Case("case45", "verifier.cpp", true, "case default",
+ "Unrecognized bytecode",
+ "Bad instruction: "),
+
+ new Case("case46", "verifier.cpp", true, "loop end",
+ "control flow falls off method",
+ "Control flow falls through code end"),
+
+ new Case("case47", "verifier.cpp", true, "generate_code_data",
+ "illegal bytecode via RawBytecodeStream (breakpoint)",
+ "Bad instruction"),
+
+ new Case("case48", "verifier.cpp", true, "generate_code_data",
+ "illegal bytecode via RawBytecodeStream (other illegal)",
+ "Bad instruction"),
+
+ new Case("case49", "verifier.cpp", true,
+ "verify_exception_handler_table",
+ "catch_type is not throwable",
+ "Catch type is not a subclass of Throwable in " +
+ "exception handler "),
+
+ new Case("case50", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_stackmap_table",
+ "missing a stack map frame @ target location (mid table)",
+ "Expecting a stack map frame"),
+
+ new Case("case51", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_stackmap_table",
+ "stack map does not match?",
+ "Instruction type does not match stack map"),
+
+ new Case("case52", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_stackmap_table",
+ "missing a stack map frame @ target location (end of table)",
+ "Expecting a stack map frame"),
+
+ new Case("case53", "verifier.cpp", true,
+ "verify_exception_handler_targets",
+ "stackmap mismatch at exception handler",
+ "Stack map does not match the one at exception handler "),
+
+ new Case("case54", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_cp_index",
+ "constant pool index is out-of-bounds",
+ "Illegal constant pool index "),
+
+ new Case("case55", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_cp_type",
+ "constant pool entry is not expected type",
+ "Illegal type at constant pool entry "),
+
+ new Case("case56", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_cp_class_type",
+ "constant pool entry is not an object type",
+ "Illegal type at constant pool entry "),
+
+ /* Unreachable: verify_cp_type gates this case */
+ new Case("case57", "verifier.cpp", false, "verify_ldc",
+ "invalid constant pool index in ldc",
+ "Invalid index in ldc"),
+
+ new Case("case58", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_switch",
+ "bad switch padding",
+ "Nonzero padding byte in lookswitch or tableswitch"),
+
+ new Case("case59", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_switch",
+ "tableswitch low is greater than high",
+ "low must be less than or equal to high in tableswitch"),
+
+ /* Unreachable on 64-bit? Only way to get here is to overflow
+ * the 'keys' variable which can't happen on 64-bit since we're dealing
+ * with 32-bit values. Perhaps reachable on 32-bit but the
+ * triggering class would be quite large */
+ new Case("case60", "verifier.cpp", false, "verify_switch",
+ "high - low + 1 < 0 (overflow?)",
+ "too many keys in tableswitch"),
+
+ /* Would have to create a 16G classfile to trip this. Possible but
+ * not reasonable to do in a test. */
+ new Case("case61", "verifier.cpp", false, "verify_switch",
+ "lookupswitch keys < 0",
+ "number of keys in lookupswitch less than 0"),
+
+ new Case("case62", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_switch",
+ "lookupswitch keys out-of-order",
+ "Bad lookupswitch instruction"),
+
+ /* Unreachable: Class file parser verifies Fieldref contents */
+ new Case("case63", "verifier.cpp", false, "verify_field_instructions",
+ "referenced class is not an CP object",
+ "Expecting reference to class in class "),
+
+ new Case("case64", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_field_instructions",
+ "TOS not assignable to field type in putfield",
+ "Bad type on operand stack in putfield"),
+
+ new Case("case65", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_field_instructions",
+ "TOS not assignable to class when accessing protected field",
+ "Bad access to protected data in getfield"),
+
+ new Case("case66", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_invoke_init",
+ "Uninit_this is not of the current type or it's supertype",
+ "Bad <init> method call"),
+
+ /* Unreachable: Stack map parsing ensures valid type and new
+ * instructions have a valid BCI. */
+ new Case("case67", "verifier.cpp", false, "verify_invoke_init",
+ "Uninit type with bad new instruction index",
+ "Expecting new instruction"),
+
+ new Case("case68", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_invoke_init",
+ "calling other class's <init> method",
+ "Call to wrong <init> method"),
+
+ new Case("case69", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_invoke_init",
+ "Calling protected <init> and type unassignable from current",
+ "Bad access to protected <init> method"),
+
+ new Case("case70", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_invoke_init",
+ "TOS is not an uninitialized (or Uninit_this) type",
+ "Bad operand type when invoking <init>"),
+
+ new Case("case71", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_invoke_instructions",
+ "Arg count in instruction doesn't match signature",
+ "Inconsistent args count operand in invokeinterface"),
+
+ new Case("case72", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_invoke_instructions",
+ "Non-zero pad in invokeinterface",
+ "Fourth operand byte of invokeinterface must be zero"),
+
+ new Case("case73", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_invoke_instructions",
+ "Non-zero pad in invokedynamic",
+ "Third and fourth operand bytes of " +
+ "invokedynamic must be zero"),
+
+ new Case("case74", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_invoke_instructions",
+ "Non-invokespecial trying to invoke a '<' method",
+ "Illegal call to internal method"),
+
+ new Case("case75", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_invoke_instructions",
+ "invokespecial and current unassignable from referenced type",
+ "Bad invokespecial instruction: current class isn't " +
+ "assignable to reference class."),
+
+ new Case("case76", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_invoke_instructions",
+ "TOS not assignable to current when calling protected method",
+ "Bad access to protected data in invokevirtual"),
+
+ /* Unreachable: class file parser enforces void signature */
+ new Case("case77", "verifier.cpp", false, "verify_invoke_instructions",
+ "<init> method is not void return",
+ "Return type must be void in <init> method"),
+
+ new Case("case78", "verifier.cpp", true, "get_newarray_type",
+ "newarray type invalid",
+ "Illegal newarray instruction"),
+
+ new Case("case79", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_return_value",
+ "void return from method which has a return value",
+ "Method expects a return value"),
+
+ new Case("case80", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_return_value",
+ "TOS type does not match signature",
+ "Bad return type"),
+
+ new Case("case81", "verifier.cpp", true, "verify_stackmap_table",
+ "stack map does not match (flags)",
+ "Instruction type does not match stack map")
+ };
+}
+
+public class Test7116786 {
+ public static void main(String argv[]) throws Exception {
+ for (Case c : VerifyErrorCases.cases) {
+ System.out.println("******** " + c.getCaseName() + " ********");
+ if (c.isTestable()) {
+ try {
+ ClassLoader cl = Test7116786.class.getClassLoader();
+ Class<?> cls = Class.forName(c.getCaseName(), true, cl);
+ throw new RuntimeException(
+ "++ FAIL: No verify error encountered");
+ } catch (VerifyError ve) {
+ String message = c.getMessage();
+ String veMessage = ve.getMessage();
+ System.out.print(veMessage);
+ if (!veMessage.startsWith(message)) {
+ // We're not seeing the message we expect. Could be
+ // that we've gotten the wrong VerifyError case, or
+ // maybe the message changed.
+ System.out.println("++ FAIL? " +
+ "Message does not match what was expected: " +
+ message);
+ continue;
+ }
+ if (!veMessage.contains("Exception Details:") &&
+ !veMessage.contains("Reason:")) {
+ System.out.println("++ FAIL: No details found");
+ throw new RuntimeException("FAIL: No details found");
+ }
+ System.out.println("++ PASS");
+ }
+ } else {
+ System.out.println("++ SKIPPED");
+ }
+ }
+ }
+}