Hello Aaron,
I considered using your testcase that manually generates the necessary
malformed JAR
but as there was a suitable signed JAR already in the test suite I decided to
re-use that.
I think it makes sense to re-work the test as a Java program. Unfortunately
I’ll be on vacation
from toda
There is precedence for revealing the full pathname only when a security
manager is not running.
Would that be acceptable?
On 20 Jun 2014, at 13:21, Vincent Ryan wrote:
> Hello Aaron,
>
> I considered using your testcase that manually generates the necessary
> malformed JAR
> but as there wa
36 // Needed by Runtime.loadLibrary(String) call
37 permission java.io.FilePermission "<>", "read";
It seems like this is due to a bug in Runtime.loadLibrary, since you
have already granted the provider the permission to load the library. I
think possibly the call to ClassLo
Hi,
Please review a trivial webrev to add JDK version to @since in a format
as Mark suggested[1].
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~henryjen/jdk9/8047721/0/webrev/
[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2014-June/000806.html
Appened is the diff as in the webrev.
Cheers,
Henry
diff
Webrev is updated at: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8043406/webrev.01
Sure, I will file a bug after Mandy's confirmation.
Thanks,
Valerie
On 6/20/2014 8:46 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
36 // Needed by Runtime.loadLibrary(String) call
37 permission java.io.FilePermission "<>
Hmm, maybe. I will add one.
Thanks for the review.
Valerie
On 6/18/2014 10:02 PM, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
The code change looks fine. Do you think this is worth a regression
test? Since the in-place operation wasn't caught it sound like there
might be no in-place tests
Tony
On 06/18/2014
On 6/20/2014 3:30 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
Webrev is updated at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8043406/webrev.01
Thanks Valerie. Good to see the security providers granting only the
permissions it requires.
Looks okay to me.
Sure, I will file a bug after Mandy's confirmation.
