AOT tool jaotc does not run with SecurityManager. We assume it runs in secure environment and it does not access any external resources.
Thanks Vladimir > On Feb 1, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Doug Simon <doug.si...@oracle.com> wrote: > > >> On 1 Feb 2017, at 20:54, Sean Mullan <sean.mul...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> Couple of comments: >> >> - jdk.vm.ci is already loaded by the boot loader so it is implicitly granted >> AllPermission and does not need an entry in default.policy. > > Thanks - I removed it. > >> - all internal APIs in the jdk.vm.compiler module will now be restricted by >> default by SecurityManager::checkPackageAccess(), so if you have any code or >> tests running with a SecurityManager that are accessing internal APIs in the >> jdk.vm.compiler module, you will need to grant them an appropriate >> "accessClassInPackage" RuntimePermission in addition to any --add-exports >> option you are using to break through encapsulation. > > Vladimir, does the AOT need to run with a SecurityManager and if so, I assume > the qualified exports from jdk.vm.compiler to jdk.aot will allow it to run > without needed an extra policy file? > > -Doug > >>> On 2/1/17 6:07 AM, Doug Simon wrote: >>> I’ve reworked the webrev as requested to make jdk.vm.compiler a >>> non-upgradeable platform module, this allowing it to be mentioned in >>> default.policy: >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dnsimon/8145337/ >>> >>> -Doug >>> >>>>> On 30 Jan 2017, at 22:53, Mandy Chung <mandy.ch...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Doug Simon <doug.si...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 30 Jan 2017, at 21:55, Mandy Chung <mandy.ch...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 10:38 AM, Doug Simon <doug.si...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I’ve extended the webrev with that change - please re-review: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dnsimon/8145337_make/webrev >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. Is that a “Reviewed”? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry. I only noticed now that you added this to UPGRADEABLE_MODULE. >>>> Please add it only to PLATFORM_MODULES list instead. >>>> >>>> Making it an upgradeable module is a separate issue. I suggest you reopen >>>> JDK-8171448. Specifically, since upgradeable modules are not tied with >>>> java.base, our goal for JDK 9 is to eliminate qualified exports from JDK >>>> modules to upgradeable modules, e.g. JDK-8170116, JDK-8166745, JDK-8161549. >>>> >>>>> I think I should get at least one sign-off from the security team. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hope Sean will review this one. Please send an updated webrev. >>>> >>>>> Also, since this is effectively making jdk.vm.compiler an upgradeable >>>>> module, >>>> >>>> No it does not. >>>> >>>>> what’s the implication for it being a hash-checked module? >>>> >>>> When a module M is recorded in the ModuleHashes attribute of java.base, >>>> the runtime will check if module M resolved in the graph matches the one >>>> tied with java.base when created at build time; if not, it will fail. If >>>> an upgradeable module >>>> >>>>> It seems like these changes effectively achieve what I was requesting >>>>> with https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171448. >>>> >>>> JDK-8145337 is about the security permission. It’s better to separate >>>> this review from JDK-8171448. >>>> >>>> Mandy >>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Doug >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Strangely, there was no existing declaration of jdk.vm.compiler in >>>>>>> Modules.gmk. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Default is to be defined by the application class loader. The build >>>>>> will find all modules from the source. There is no need to list all >>>>>> modules. >>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW, I never answered your question: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "How does JVMCI call out to jdk.vm.compiler? does it load classes >>>>>>> using Class::forName with the system class loader?” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It uses JVMCIServiceLocator[1] which is a mechanism built on the >>>>>>> standard ServiceLoader. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the pointer. That confirms my understanding that loads the >>>>>> service providers using the system class loader. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mandy >>> >
