[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13858105#comment-13858105
]
Felix Meschberger commented on FELIX-4362:
------------------------------------------
Implemented calling the ManagedService[Factory] methods as privileged actions
if a SecurityManager is installed in Rev. 1553904.
As for the AccessControlContext required: I am not really sure, what
AccessControlContext we should use here, so an AccessControlContext is created
using the called service's ProtectionDomain. For sure, the AccessControlContext
from AccessControll.getContext() cannot be used because that is based on the
ConfigurationAdmin bundle's protection domain.
The trunk build currently passes our own tests as well as OSGi CT tests.
Please check, whether a trunk build of the Configuration Admin bundle fixes
your issues.
> Security ConfigAdmin permissions are inherited on the stack
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FELIX-4362
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4362
> Project: Felix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Configuration Admin
> Affects Versions: configadmin-1.8.0
> Reporter: Guillaume Nodet
> Assignee: Felix Meschberger
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: configadmin-1.8.2
>
>
> It seems to cause lots of issues for me when testing.
> For example, I end up with lots of exceptions like:
> [CM Configuration Updater (ManagedServiceFactory Update:
> factoryPid=[org.apache.felix.fileinstall])] ERROR
> org.apache.felix.configadmin - [org.osgi.service.cm.ManagedServiceFactory,
> id=233, bundle=7/mvn:org.apache.felix/org.apache.felix.fileinstall/3.2.6]:
> Unexpected problem updating configuration
> org.apache.felix.fileinstall.c0eba252-35f7-4ab6-bc11-ad11e131711c
> java.security.AccessControlException: access denied
> ("java.util.PropertyPermission" "java.io.tmpdir" "read")
> at
> java.security.AccessControlContext.checkPermission(AccessControlContext.java:372)
> at
> java.security.AccessController.checkPermission(AccessController.java:559)
> at java.lang.SecurityManager.checkPermission(SecurityManager.java:549)
> at
> java.lang.SecurityManager.checkPropertyAccess(SecurityManager.java:1302)
> at java.lang.System.getProperty(System.java:708)
> at
> org.apache.felix.fileinstall.internal.DirectoryWatcher.<init>(DirectoryWatcher.java:109)
> at
> org.apache.felix.fileinstall.internal.FileInstall.updated(FileInstall.java:246)
> at
> org.apache.felix.fileinstall.internal.FileInstall$ConfigAdminSupport$Tracker.updated(FileInstall.java:422)
> at
> org.apache.felix.cm.impl.helper.ManagedServiceFactoryTracker.provideConfiguration(ManagedServiceFactoryTracker.java:88)
> at
> org.apache.felix.cm.impl.ConfigurationManager$ManagedServiceFactoryUpdate.provide(ConfigurationManager.java:1605)
> at
> org.apache.felix.cm.impl.ConfigurationManager$ManagedServiceFactoryUpdate.run(ConfigurationManager.java:1548)
> at org.apache.felix.cm.impl.UpdateThread.run(UpdateThread.java:103)
> at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744)
> I think if we want to allow such a permissions file, we also need to ensure
> that all access to bundles are not conditioned by it.
> In the above stack trace and when running with a security manager, the call
> to service.updated() should be done inside a priviledged action I think:
> {code}
> return AccessController.doPrivileged(new PrivilegedAction<Object>() {
> public Object run() { service.updated( configPid.toString(), props ); }
> }, accessControlContext);
> {code}
> so that permissions of ConfigAdmin bundle are not inherited by other bundles.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
