-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
WalkVM crash in dd-java-agent v1.56.0 #298
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.
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
Conversation
Benchmarks [x86_64 wall]Parameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 16 metrics, 22 unstable metrics. |
Benchmarks [x86_64 cpu,wall,alloc,memleak]Parameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 17 metrics, 21 unstable metrics. |
Benchmarks [x86_64 alloc]Parameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 14 metrics, 24 unstable metrics. |
Benchmarks [x86_64 memleak]Parameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 14 metrics, 24 unstable metrics. |
Benchmarks [x86_64 cpu]Parameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 16 metrics, 22 unstable metrics. |
Benchmarks [x86_64 memleak,alloc]Parameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 15 metrics, 23 unstable metrics. |
Benchmarks [aarch64 wall]Parameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 16 metrics, 22 unstable metrics. |
Benchmarks [aarch64 cpu,wall,alloc,memleak]Parameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 17 metrics, 21 unstable metrics. |
Benchmarks [aarch64 cpu]Parameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 16 metrics, 22 unstable metrics. |
Benchmarks [aarch64 cpu,wall]Parameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 16 metrics, 22 unstable metrics. |
Benchmarks [aarch64 memleak]Parameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 18 metrics, 20 unstable metrics. |
Benchmarks [aarch64 alloc]Parameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 16 metrics, 22 unstable metrics. |
Benchmarks [aarch64 memleak,alloc]Parameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 16 metrics, 22 unstable metrics. |
Benchmarks [x86_64 cpu,wall]Parameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 15 metrics, 23 unstable metrics. |
jbachorik
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good. I wonder if we can reuse the upstream version of safeAccess.h now?
(cherry picked from commit 5ec6f6a)
What does this PR do?:
Provide default values for
SafeAccess::load()andSafeAccess::load32()Motivation:
Upstream changed
SafeAccess::load()andSafeAccess::load32()APIs with default values, that result in breaking Java profiler.Additional Notes:
How to test the change?:
For Datadog employees:
credentials of any kind, I've requested a review from
@DataDog/security-design-and-guidance.Unsure? Have a question? Request a review!