[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker
From: |
Andrew Haley |
Subject: |
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:32:10 +0100 |
Jeroen Frijters writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Which is the Right Answer: the caller of baz *is* Frob.
>
> It *may* be the right answer, but how can you be certain that the
> coder of class Foo intended this?
Ah, well that is a totally different matter.
> IMNSHO, code like this is completely unauditable (remember, this
> isn't just a correctness issue, access to class loaders is a
> potential security issue).
Of course, yes. But it's security issues that I'm concerned about
here: what we want to know is the first caller of Foo.method() that is
not Foo.
Andrew.
- Re: Implementation details of VMStackWalker, (continued)
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker, Jeroen Frijters, 2005/07/25
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker, Jeroen Frijters, 2005/07/25
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker, Jeroen Frijters, 2005/07/25
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker, Jeroen Frijters, 2005/07/25
- RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker,
Andrew Haley <=
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker, Jeroen Frijters, 2005/07/25
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker, Jeroen Frijters, 2005/07/25