Hi Mark,
Thanks for your quick reply, and apologies for my egregiously slow
one...
Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 17:55 +, Gary Benson wrote:
> > Gary Benson wrote:
> > > Robert Lougher wrote:
> > > > Do you have a testcase?
> > >
> > > If you build and run the attached testcas
Hi Gary,
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 17:55 +, Gary Benson wrote:
> Gary Benson wrote:
> > Robert Lougher wrote:
> > > Do you have a testcase?
> >
> > If you build and run the attached testcase you ought to see only one
> > checkPermission() between "Calling checkRead()" and "Done". ... In
> > reali
Gary Benson wrote:
> Robert Lougher wrote:
> > Do you have a testcase?
>
> If you build and run the attached testcase you ought to see only one
> checkPermission() between "Calling checkRead()" and "Done". ... In
> reality, JamVM chokes on it pretty hard. I _think_ what is
> happening is that the
Robert Lougher wrote:
> On 12/6/05, Gary Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...I was just looking at an some code in an
> > AccessController.doPrivileged() that was doing security checks.
> > Perhaps JamVM's AccessController.doPrivileged() is not in fact
> > doing anything.
>
> What version of
Hi,
On 12/6/05, Gary Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony Green wrote:
> > It's been a long time since I've read anything about this kind of
> > stuff, but my understanding is that you simply wrap things like this
> > up in a AccessController.doPrivileged(), since the access control
> > con
> "Anthony" == Anthony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anthony> It's been a long time since I've read anything about this
Anthony> kind of stuff, but my understanding is that you simply wrap
Anthony> things like this up in a AccessController.doPrivileged(),
Anthony> since the access control
> "Anthony" == Anthony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anthony> Perhaps. Implementing proper sandbox behaviour is easy to defer. I
Anthony> think it will take the kind of work you are doing to drive VMs to take
Anthony> care of details like this. Do we even do it properly in libgcj (being
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 17:16 +, Gary Benson wrote:
> That's interesting, as I was just looking at an some code in an
> AccessController.doPrivileged() that was doing security checks.
> Perhaps JamVM's AccessController.doPrivileged() is not in fact doing
> anything.
Perhaps. Implementing proper
Anthony Green wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 16:14 +, Gary Benson wrote:
> > I'm having security manager problems, with JamVM at least.
> > Various initialisations happen the first time a permission is
> > checked, including java.security.Security's method which
> > reads the provider files $v
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 16:14 +, Gary Benson wrote:
> I'm having security manager problems, with JamVM at least. Various
> initialisations happen the first time a permission is checked,
> including java.security.Security's method which reads the
> provider files $vendor.security and classpath.s
Hi all,
I'm having security manager problems, with JamVM at least. Various
initialisations happen the first time a permission is checked,
including java.security.Security's method which reads the
provider files $vendor.security and classpath.security. By this time
you are most likely running un
11 matches
Mail list logo
