[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-3259?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12594986#action_12594986
]
Hadoop QA commented on HADOOP-3259:
-----------------------------------
-1 overall. Here are the results of testing the latest attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12381558/3259.patch
against trunk revision 654128.
+1 @author. The patch does not contain any @author tags.
-1 tests included. The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified
tests.
Please justify why no tests are needed for this patch.
+1 javadoc. The javadoc tool did not generate any warning messages.
+1 javac. The applied patch does not increase the total number of javac
compiler warnings.
+1 findbugs. The patch does not introduce any new Findbugs warnings.
+1 release audit. The applied patch does not increase the total number of
release audit warnings.
+1 core tests. The patch passed core unit tests.
+1 contrib tests. The patch passed contrib unit tests.
Test results:
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2417/testReport/
Findbugs warnings:
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2417/artifact/trunk/build/test/findbugs/newPatchFindbugsWarnings.html
Checkstyle results:
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2417/artifact/trunk/build/test/checkstyle-errors.html
Console output:
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2417/console
This message is automatically generated.
> Configuration.substituteVars() needs to handle security exceptions
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-3259
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-3259
> Project: Hadoop Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: conf
> Affects Versions: 0.16.2
> Reporter: Steve Loughran
> Assignee: Edward J. Yoon
> Priority: Trivial
> Fix For: 0.18.0
>
> Attachments: 3259.patch
>
>
> Inside Configuration.substituteVars(), there is a call to
> System.getProperty(var); this contains the implicit assumption that the JVM
> will never block access to a system property, because if that is the case
> -such as when the Configuration is running under a restrictive security
> manager, a SecurityException gets thrown. This will get thrown all the way up
> the tree.
> Better to have some plan to handle it in situ, such as a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> level then leave the property unexpanded.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
