On 15:21 Fri 03 Dec , Anthony Petrov wrote: > On 12/2/2010 9:26 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > By default, there is no SecurityManager (getSecurityManager returns null) > > and thus > > everything is permitted. Once the default instance is installed, you're > > subject > > to java.policy. > > > > The above results are nothing to do with jtreg as the above examples > > are all just run with a standard 'java' invocation. > > Hm... that's surprising. I believe the testing machine where the test > was developed had some very permissive default security policy, and as > such the problem hasn't been caught. > > OK, then the test really needs some change, and the proposed fix looks > good to me. > > PS. Although if the enhanced security warning is backported to OpenJDK6, > the test and the fix seem useless. And it's already useless in JDK7. >
Ok, well as both you and Joe (http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2010-December/002143.html) have said that the warning fix is ok to backport, I'll post a webrev for this either today or early next week. Then we can just remove the test from both 6 & 7. > -- > best regards, > Anthony Thanks, -- Andrew :) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://icedtea.classpath.org PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint = F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
