Thanks for the sample project. I can confirm that I observe a
AccessControlException when logback is present. The
AccessControlException is not thrown if slf4j-nop, slf4j-simple or
slf4j-log4j are used as the slf4j binding.
Although logback does not install its own SecurityManager or modify
the security configuration, it does attempt to determine whether it
has "getClassLoader" permission. See http://goo.gl/zASBm
Here is the code in question:
AccessController.doPrivileged(new PrivilegedAction<Boolean>() {
public Boolean run() {
try {
AccessController.checkPermission(
new RuntimePermission("getClassLoader"));
return true;
} catch (AccessControlException e) {
return false;
}
}
});
If the privileged block above code is removed, then the
AccessControlException goes away. The privileged block looks quite
legitimate to me so I don't think it's a bug in logback.
To convince yourself the the privileged block is key, you can remove
all logging related calls and all logging related dependencies, add
the privileged block at the beginning of the test. You should observe
an AccessControlException being thrown.
--
Ceki
http://twitter.com/#!/ceki
On 11/5/2011 1:42 PM, Andrew Bourgeois wrote:
Ceki,
I redid the test in a clean Maven project. I don't know if attachments
will pass through, so:
1) pom.xml:
<project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0";
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
xsi:schemaLocation="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0
http://maven.apache.org/maven-v4_0_0.xsd";>
<modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
<name>test</name>
<groupId>be.test.fun</groupId>
<artifactId>test</artifactId>
<version>0.1.0-RC1</version>
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
<artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
<version>1.6.0</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>log4j</groupId>
<artifactId>log4j</artifactId>
<version>1.2.16</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
<artifactId>slf4j-log4j12</artifactId>
<version>1.6.0</version>
</dependency>
<!--dependency>
<groupId>ch.qos.logback</groupId>
<artifactId>logback-core</artifactId>
<version>1.0.0</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>ch.qos.logback</groupId>
<artifactId>logback-classic</artifactId>
<version>1.0.0</version>
</dependency-->
<dependency>
<groupId>junit</groupId>
<artifactId>junit</artifactId>
<version>4.4</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
<build>
<resources>
</resources>
<plugins>
<plugin>
<artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId>
<configuration>
<source>1.6</source>
<target>1.6</target>
<verbose>true</verbose>
</configuration>
</plugin>
</plugins>
</build>
</project>
2) The JUnit test:
package be.test.fun;
import org.junit.Test;
import java.rmi.RMISecurityManager;
import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
public class SecurityManagerTest {
@Test
public void securityManagerWithLogs() {
Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SecurityManagerTest.class);
System.setProperty("java.security.policy",
"./src/test/resources/java.policy");
logger.debug("Policy location: {}",
System.getProperty("java.security.policy"));
if (System.getSecurityManager() == null) {
System.setSecurityManager(new RMISecurityManager());
}
System.setProperty("java.security.policy",
"./src/test/resources/java.policy");
}
// @Test
// public void securityManagerWithoutLogs() {
// System.setProperty("java.security.policy",
"./src/test/resources/java.policy");
// if (System.getSecurityManager() == null) {
// System.setSecurityManager(new RMISecurityManager());
// }
// System.setProperty("java.security.policy",
"./src/test/resources/java.policy");
// }
}
3) java.policy that you put into src/test.resources:
grant {
permission java.security.AllPermission;
};
So.... if you run this:
-------------------------------------------------------
T E S T S
-------------------------------------------------------
Running be.test.fun.SecurityManagerTest
2011-11-05 13:36:33,828 [main] DEBUG - (be.test.fun.SecurityManagerTest)
- Policy location: ./src/test/resources/java.policy
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.201 sec
Results :
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
Now, comment the 2 LOG4J-related dependencies inside the POM, and
uncomment the logback ones:
-------------------------------------------------------
T E S T S
-------------------------------------------------------
Running be.test.fun.SecurityManagerTest
13:38:04.222 [main] DEBUG be.test.fun.SecurityManagerTest - Policy
location: ./src/test/resources/java.policy
java.security.AccessControlException: access denied
(java.lang.RuntimePermission setContextClassLoader)
at
java.security.AccessControlContext.checkPermission(AccessControlContext.java:323)
at
java.security.AccessController.checkPermission(AccessController.java:546)
at java.lang.SecurityManager.checkPermission(SecurityManager.java:532)
at java.lang.Thread.setContextClassLoader(Thread.java:1394)
at
org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess(SurefireBooter.java:366)
at
org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:1021)
[INFO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] BUILD FAILURE
[INFO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Total time: 2.202s
And now comment the "securityManagerWithLogs" test method, and uncomment
the "securityManagerWithoutLogs" one:
-------------------------------------------------------
T E S T S
-------------------------------------------------------
Running be.test.fun.SecurityManagerTest
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.105 sec
Results :
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
Do you have the same output?
FYI:
[xvepak@localhost test]$ mvn -version
Apache Maven 3.0.1 (r1038046; 2010-11-23 11:58:32+0100)
Java version: 1.6.0_23
Java home: /home/xvepak/software/jdk1.6.0_23/jre
Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: UTF-8
OS name: "linux" version: "2.6.18-238.12.1.el5" arch: "i386" Family: "unix"
Thank you for trying to help out!!
Best regards
Andrew Bourgeois
-----Original Message----- From: ceki
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 1:03 AM
To: logback users list
Subject: Re: [logback-user] SecurityManager issue using logback
On 05/11/2011 12:47 PM, Andrew Bourgeois wrote:
So to reformulate:
The exception IS thrown when we have SLF4J code
The exception ISN'T thrown when we remove the SLF4J.
That's not what I observe. An exception is thrown in both cases.
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
Logback-user@qos.ch
http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
