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.



PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8437

Reply via email to