8390112: Protected static access resolves to a wrong static method

[dbalek]

Consider the following code snippets:

package a;

public class Parent {
    protected static boolean test(Object value) {
        return value != null;
    }
}

package b;
import a.Parent;

public class Child extends Parent {
    @Reflect
    public static boolean test(Object value) {
        return Parent.test(value);
    }
}

When generating bytecode for a protected static method invocation from a different package, the generator uses the lookup class as the receiver of findStatic. This could resolve a method declared on the accessing class instead of the referenced class.

The proposal is to modify BytecodeGenerator to use the referenced class for protected static method-handle lookups. A regression test covers resolving and invoking a protected static method declared by a superclass in another package.

---

• I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the OpenJDK Interim AI Policy.

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace

Issue

• JDK-8390112: Protected static access resolves to a wrong static method (Bug - P4)

Reviewers

• Adam Sotona (@asotona - Reviewer)
• Paul Sandoz (@PaulSandoz - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/babylon.git pull/1150/head:pull/1150
$ git checkout pull/1150

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/1150
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/babylon.git pull/1150/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 1150

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 1150

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/babylon/pull/1150.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

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

[openjdk]

@dbalek This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8390112: Protected static access resolves to a wrong static method

Reviewed-by: asotona, psandoz

You can use pull request commands such as /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 2 new commits pushed to the code-reflection branch:

• 49577a7: 8389767: Assertion error from BytecodeGenerator.setCatchStack
• 9aa71b4: I missed updating nbodygl example to skip KernelContext

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the code-reflection branch.
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@asotona, @PaulSandoz) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 01: Full - Incremental (3841883c)
• 00: Full (14cb6c5c)

[asotona]

Looks good to me.

[dbalek]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@dbalek
Your change (at version 3841883) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[PaulSandoz]

/sponsor

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 6d1be28.
Since your change was applied there have been 5 commits pushed to the code-reflection branch:

• 0d446fa: 8390454: JavaOp lowering incorrectly matches null against an identity reference type pattern
• 05faf9d: Non denotable type normalization skips some intersection types
• 448abde: Hat cleanup nv cuda ptx backend
• ... and 2 more: https://git.openjdk.org/babylon/compare/37892472f6f8628baf9ee904d63d133e25cfabdb...code-reflection

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@PaulSandoz @dbalek Pushed as commit 6d1be28.

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