Skip to content

HHH-19372 HHH-19369 Issues with access optimizer and inheritance #10075

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from
+596 −17
Closed

HHH-19372 HHH-19369 Issues with access optimizer and inheritance #10075

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
a10970c
HHH-19372: Reproducing test
VladoKuruc Apr 19, 2025
0fa010d
HHH-19369 Add test for issue
dreab8 Apr 23, 2025
676c3f3
HHH-19372 HHH-19369 Issues with access optimizer and inheritance
dreab8 Apr 23, 2025
3001ee5
HHH-19372 HHH-19369 use LinkedHashMap for InflightMetadataCollector#e…
dreab8 Apr 23, 2025
0c2f0de
HHH-19372 HHH-19369 Add Code Source Location HashCode to proxy genera…
dreab8 Apr 30, 2025
3dfa0c2
HHH-19372 HHH-19369 Add Code Source Location HashCode to proxy genera…
dreab8 Apr 30, 2025
c18efda
HHH-19372 HHH-19369 Issues with access optimizer and inheritance
dreab8 Apr 30, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
14 changes: 11 additions & 3 deletions hibernate-core/src/main/java/org/hibernate/proxy/pojo/bytebuddy/ByteBuddyProxyHelper.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ public Class buildProxy(
}
Collections.addAll( key, interfaces );

final String proxyClassName = persistentClass.getTypeName() + "$" + PROXY_NAMING_SUFFIX;
final String proxyClassName = getClassNameWithSuffix( persistentClass, persistentClass.getTypeName(), PROXY_NAMING_SUFFIX );
return byteBuddyState.loadProxy( persistentClass, proxyClassName,
proxyBuilder( TypeDescription.ForLoadedType.of( persistentClass ), new TypeList.Generic.ForLoadedTypes( interfaces ) ) );
}
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -187,16 +187,24 @@ private static Method resolveIdSetterMethod(SerializableProxy serializableProxy)
}
}

private static String getClassNameWithSuffix(Class<?> clazz, String name, String suffix) {
return getClassNameWithCodeSourceLocationHashCode(clazz, name) + "$" + suffix;
}

public static String getClassNameWithSuffix(Class<?> clazz, String suffix) {
return getClassNameWithCodeSourceLocationHashCode(clazz) + "$" + suffix;
}

private static String getClassNameWithCodeSourceLocationHashCode(Class<?> clazz) {
return getClassNameWithCodeSourceLocationHashCode( clazz, clazz.getName() );
}

private static String getClassNameWithCodeSourceLocationHashCode(Class<?> clazz, String className) {
final java.security.CodeSource codeSource = clazz.getProtectionDomain().getCodeSource();
if ( codeSource == null ) {
return clazz.getName();
return className;
}
final URL url = codeSource.getLocation();
return url == null ? clazz.getName() : clazz.getName() + url.toString().hashCode();
return url == null ? className : className + url.toString().hashCode();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just leaving a couple of notes here for the future:

  • hashCode() does not prevent possible collisions; I agree it would be extremely rare to have the same class multiple times, and also have conflicting hash-codes for their code source, but still could happen.
  • java.security.CodeSource access could be blocked via SecurityManager
  • bytecode enhanced classes return null here, though from some early testing we don't have any CCEs in that case; it would be great to understand why that works (my hypothesis would be we're using the byte code-enhanced class from byte-buddy in both PUs)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Regarding SecurityManager, I think ORM would be trusted by the SecurityManager and if not, would need changes to ensure it is trusted.

}
}