On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 20:07:41 GMT, Joe Darcy <da...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/conf/security/java.policy line 34: >> >>> 32: "java.specification.version", "read"; >>> 33: permission java.util.PropertyPermission >>> 34: "java.specification.maintenance.version", "read"; >> >> For consistency, you should probably also add a hard-coded permission to the >> `sun.security.provider.PolicyFile.initStaticPolicy()` method which is used >> as a fallback if there is a problem parsing the `java.policy` file. I doubt >> this will cause any issues as I don't suspect many/any applications will >> suddenly start reading this property and running with an SM but again it is >> mainly for consistency as all the other default permissions in this file are >> also granted in that method. > > Will do; thanks. Just to double-check, under the current proposal, this > property will be undefined most of the time. I assume it is fine for the > permissions to grant the ability to read a property that is not actually > there. Yes. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8437
