JDK-8249677 : Regression in 8u after JDK-8237117: Better ForkJoinPool behavior
  • Type: Bug
  • Component: core-libs
  • Sub-Component: java.util.concurrent
  • Affected Version: openjdk8u262
  • Priority: P2
  • Status: Resolved
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • CPU: generic
  • Submitted: 2020-07-17
  • Updated: 2020-08-03
  • Resolved: 2020-07-24
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
Other
openjdk8u265Fixed
Related Reports
Relates :  
JDK-8250546 - Expect changed behaviour reported in JDK-8249846
Relates :  
JDK-8249846 - Change of behavior after JDK-8237117: Better ForkJoinPool behavior
Description
Subclasses of ForkJoinWorkerThread are responsible for management of inherited AccessControlContext. The current AccessControlContext is used by default.

8u backport of JDK-8237117 changes default AccessControlContext to INNOCUOUS_ACC instead of the current one.

Discussion thread: https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2020-July/012180.html
Comments
URL: https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u/jdk/rev/4eca7c32a9c8 User: andrew Date: 2020-08-03 02:44:23 +0000
03-08-2020
URL: https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/jdk/rev/4eca7c32a9c8 User: andrew Date: 2020-07-24 16:03:54 +0000
24-07-2020
Fix Request 8u https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2020-July/012235.html
22-07-2020
Thanks for checking. We are going to fix this bug in openjdk, I've opened JDK-8249846 for the second issue
22-07-2020
I'm looking into this at the moment Oracle JDK shows the same difference as OpenJDK. Interestingly for JDK9+ the behaviour is the same both before and after this change. (the result is an AccessControlException) This appears to be due to 8172726. For JDK8 we may need a separate package-private constructor in ForkJoinWorkerThread to rectify this change in behaviour.
21-07-2020
@Chris, thanks for checking. I've found another difference in the behavior of openjdk8u252 and openjdk8u262, which can be seen on Test2.java. Could you please check if Oracle JDK is OK?
20-07-2020
Adding the `oraclejdk-na` label, since this issue does not affect the Oracle JDK.
19-07-2020
The Oracle JDK does NOT change the behaviour of protected ForkJoinWorkerThread(ForkJoinPool) constructor. This issue does not duplicate on the Oracle jdk1.8.0_261 JDK. $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_261.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/javac Test.java $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_261.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -version java version "1.8.0_261" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_261-b12) Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.261-b12, mixed mode) $ $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_261.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java Test done $
19-07-2020