Sorry, I'm just catching up and looking at this now.
The one thing I don't like about these tests that use their own Policy
implementation is that the permissions that are granted inside the test
are granted to all code, and not just the test, which may lead to cases
where permissions that should be granted to JDK modules in
default.policy may be missed.
In tests that use policy files, we should grant permissions to only the
test, for example:
grant codebase "file:${test.classes}/.../-" {
permission ...;
};
However, in looking through our policy files, there are many that are
not doing that. Something to fix, so I'll file a bug.
This could also be fixed in these tests by inspecting the CodeSource of
the ProtectionDomain. Or better yet, they should just use the jtreg
java.security.policy option and a policy file and avoid the need to
create a Policy implementation.
Thanks,
Sean
On 6/20/19 11:04 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
The Policy API does not assume the presence of the default policy for
the runtime to use.
jdk.internal.vm.compiler already uses doPrivileged. The module ends up
with no permission as the test policy does not consult the default policy.
Mandy
On 6/20/19 6:32 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi,
If this were java.base, we would use doPrivilege to ignore the policy
and place specific limits.
Encumbering the default policy with conditions needed by a trusted
subsystem seems
like distributing what should be a local implementation issue.
$.02, Roger
On 6/20/19 2:23 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
Indeed these are test issues that the tests will need to grant
permissions
to jdk.internal.vm.compiler as the default policy grants.
Thanks for going extra miles to fix the tests.
My suggestion may be a bit general. What I intend to say the custom
security policy should extend the default policy unless it intentionally
excludes configuring permissions for specific modules. I review the
the patch but the test doesn't clearly tell what the test intends to
do w.r.t. security configuration.
We should avoid inadvertently granting permissions that the test expects
to disallow. A better solution is to limit granting permissions just
for
`jdk.internal.vm.compiler` module rather than all.
Attached is ModulePolicy class that allows you to get the Policy for
a specific module. It can be put in the test library that these tests
can use them.
So the test can call ModulePolicy.get("jdk.internal.vm.compiler") and
implies method will call the returned ModulePolicy if present.
test/lib/jdk/test/lib/security is one existing testlibrary for security
related stuff. You can consider putting ModulePolicy.java there.
This is one idea.
Mandy
On 6/19/19 6:03 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kvn/8185139/webrev.00/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8185139
For Graal to work we have to give Graal module all permissions which
is specified in default policy [1].
Unfortunately this cause problem for Graal running tests which
overwrite default policy.
I discussed this with Mandy and she suggested that such tests should
also check default policy. I implemented her suggestion. Note, this
is not only Graal problem. There were already similar fixes before [2].
I also updated Graal's problem list. Several tests were left on
problem list (with different bug id) because they would not run with
Java Graal (for example, they use --limit-modules flag which
prevents loading Graal module). We will enable such tests again when
libgraal is supported.
I ran testing which execute these tests with Graal. It shows only
known problems which are not related to these changes.
Thanks,
Vladimir
[1]
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/49ed5e31fe1e/src/java.base/share/lib/security/default.policy#l156
[2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189291
