Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
On 5/19/17 06:22, Robbin Ehn wrote:
Hi,
On 05/19/2017 08:27 AM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 5/18/17 04:05, Robbin Ehn wrote:
Hi of those:
One more alternate solution to suggest is to add new function:
jdwpTransportError
SetTransportConfiguration(jdwpTransportConfiguration config);
Where:
typedef struct {
const char* allowed_peers;
} jdwpTransportConfiguration;
This approach allows to extend the jdwpTransportConfiguration in
the future if necessary.
+1
It would nice if a compiled client against JDK 8 headers works
without recompiling with a JDK 9 runtime.
To make really future proof; using a client compiled against JDK 9
with JDK 1X you will need some way to know witch version of the
struct was used.
E.g. SetTransportConfiguration(&config,
JDWP_TRANSPORT_CONFIGURATION_CURRENT_VERSION);
No need to have a separate transport configuration versioning.
It is enough to have just a transport API versioning.
My thought when writing that was to not add the transport API versioning.
But as you say if that is there, we already know the struct version.
Right.
Thanks,
Serguei
/Robbin
Thanks,
Serguei
Thanks, Robbin!
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Hi,
On 05/19/2017 08:27 AM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 5/18/17 04:05, Robbin Ehn wrote:
Hi of those:
One more alternate solution to suggest is to add new function:
jdwpTransportError SetTransportConfiguration(jdwpTransportConfiguration config);
Where:
typedef struct {
const char* allowed_peers;
} jdwpTransportConfiguration;
This approach allows to extend the jdwpTransportConfiguration in the future if
necessary.
+1
It would nice if a compiled client against JDK 8 headers works without
recompiling with a JDK 9 runtime.
To make really future proof; using a client compiled against JDK 9 with JDK 1X
you will need some way to know witch version of the struct was used.
E.g. SetTransportConfiguration(&config,
JDWP_TRANSPORT_CONFIGURATION_CURRENT_VERSION);
No need to have a separate transport configuration versioning.
It is enough to have just a transport API versioning.
My thought when writing that was to not add the transport API versioning.
But as you say if that is there, we already know the struct version.
/Robbin
Thanks,
Serguei
Thanks, Robbin!
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Dmitry,
On 5/18/17 04:33, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Serguei,
*a*
4. The suggested *allow* feature is too destructive for the
transport API. It makes the original function StartListening unusable
and its entry slot a garbage. It will become a big mess if we add
more function clones like StartListening11. . . . 6. The suggested
API update makes the transport API VERSION_1_1 incompatible with the
initial VERSION_1_0.
Transport 1.0 uses StartListening slot. Transport 1.1 uses
StartListeningWithAllow slot.
I don't see any difference between this approach and approach of adding
extra slot and extra function.
Transport 1.0 will continue to work as is (ever without recompilation).
Transport 1.1 will crash if it doesn't fill proper slot.
It is not good enough.
The Transport 1.1 can also support and be compatible with the 1.0 API.
It works well for both alternate approaches.
It does not work in your case (see the webrev.18).
The API will become ugly and messy if more function clones
like the StartListening clones are added in the future.
The old duplicates hold the API slots that become unusable.
*b*
I'm against separate Allow() call because:
1) Socket communication steps is well known. Extra step (call Allow
before StartListen) is not natural.
I'm rejecting this argument.
The StartListeningWithAllow step is also not well known and natural.
There is no problem to add the AllowPeers step.
2) API have to clear visible and self documenting.
If transport developer doesn't implement Allow() they doesn't
see any sign of mistake until they starts testing the
transport with allow parameter.
As opposite unused parameter is clear visible and cause compiler warning.
This argument also looks strange to me.
Why would not the transport developer implement AllowPeers()
if he is trying to implement the transport 1.1 API?
It is the developer responsibility.
3) In a future, parsing of allow list might require results of socket
call (e.g. to distinguish between IPv4 only and IPv4/Ipv6 cases)
There is no point to discuss the IPv6 until the API for it is suggested.
Otherwise, this discussion is too abstract.
*c*
As for configuration structures, any jdwpConfiguration structure
requires versioning i.e. see webrev.15. But we decided to go in other
direction.
(already replied to Robbin)
No need to have a separate versioning for the jdwpConfiguration.
The transport API version will work well for it.
Thanks,
Serguei
-Dmitry
On 2017-05-18 13:20, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
Let's get to a consensus for the last item on our plate:
jdwpTransportError AllowPeers(const char* peers); .VS.
jdwpTransportError StartListeningWithAllow(const char* address,
char** actual_address, char *allow);
I still do not like the StartListening() function clone and its
name. It looks like a wrong direction to me.
This is a fragment of my bug report comment on this issue:
4. The suggested *allow* feature is too destructive for the
transport API. It makes the original function StartListening unusable
and its entry slot a garbage. It will become a big mess if we add
more function clones like StartListening11. . . . 6. The suggested
API update makes the transport API VERSION_1_1 incompatible with the
initial VERSION_1_0.
One more alternate solution to suggest is to add new function:
jdwpTransportError
SetTransportConfiguration(jdwpTransportConfiguration config);
Where: typedef struct { const char* allowed_peers; }
jdwpTransportConfiguration;
This approach allows to extend the jdwpTransportConfiguration in the
future if necessary. However, I'm not sure we really need this
ability.
Both alternatives allow for the transport library to support both
API versions. It is good by itself and also, it is a way to simplify
the transport library.
We could formulate the following requirements to the API updates: -
the transport API update must support previous API versions - the
updated API layout must be compatible with previous versions
It seems to me, these requirements are achievable and two alternate
approaches show it.
Please, share your opinions?
Thanks, Serguei
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
On 5/18/17 04:05, Robbin Ehn wrote:
Hi of those:
One more alternate solution to suggest is to add new function:
jdwpTransportError
SetTransportConfiguration(jdwpTransportConfiguration config);
Where:
typedef struct {
const char* allowed_peers;
} jdwpTransportConfiguration;
This approach allows to extend the jdwpTransportConfiguration in the
future if necessary.
+1
It would nice if a compiled client against JDK 8 headers works without
recompiling with a JDK 9 runtime.
To make really future proof; using a client compiled against JDK 9
with JDK 1X you will need some way to know witch version of the struct
was used.
E.g. SetTransportConfiguration(&config,
JDWP_TRANSPORT_CONFIGURATION_CURRENT_VERSION);
No need to have a separate transport configuration versioning.
It is enough to have just a transport API versioning.
Thanks,
Serguei
Thanks, Robbin!
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Robbin,
Please, see my answer to Serguei.
-Dmitry
On 2017-05-18 14:05, Robbin Ehn wrote:
> Hi of those:
>
>> One more alternate solution to suggest is to add new function:
>> jdwpTransportError
>> SetTransportConfiguration(jdwpTransportConfiguration config);
>>
>> Where:
>>typedef struct {
>>const char* allowed_peers;
>>} jdwpTransportConfiguration;
>>
>>
>> This approach allows to extend the jdwpTransportConfiguration in the
>> future if necessary.
>
> +1
>
> It would nice if a compiled client against JDK 8 headers works without
> recompiling with a JDK 9 runtime.
> To make really future proof; using a client compiled against JDK 9 with
> JDK 1X you will need some way to know witch version of the struct was used.
>
> E.g. SetTransportConfiguration(&config,
> JDWP_TRANSPORT_CONFIGURATION_CURRENT_VERSION);
>
> Thanks, Robbin!
--
Dmitry Samersoff
Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia
* I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the sources.
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Serguei,
*a*
> 4. The suggested *allow* feature is too destructive for the
> transport API. It makes the original function StartListening unusable
> and its entry slot a garbage. It will become a big mess if we add
> more function clones like StartListening11. . . . 6. The suggested
> API update makes the transport API VERSION_1_1 incompatible with the
> initial VERSION_1_0.
Transport 1.0 uses StartListening slot. Transport 1.1 uses
StartListeningWithAllow slot.
I don't see any difference between this approach and approach of adding
extra slot and extra function.
Transport 1.0 will continue to work as is (ever without recompilation).
Transport 1.1 will crash if it doesn't fill proper slot.
*b*
I'm against separate Allow() call because:
1) Socket communication steps is well known. Extra step (call Allow
before StartListen) is not natural.
2) API have to clear visible and self documenting.
If transport developer doesn't implement Allow() they doesn't
see any sign of mistake until they starts testing the
transport with allow parameter.
As opposite unused parameter is clear visible and cause compiler warning.
3) In a future, parsing of allow list might require results of socket
call (e.g. to distinguish between IPv4 only and IPv4/Ipv6 cases)
*c*
As for configuration structures, any jdwpConfiguration structure
requires versioning i.e. see webrev.15. But we decided to go in other
direction.
-Dmitry
On 2017-05-18 13:20, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> Let's get to a consensus for the last item on our plate:
> jdwpTransportError AllowPeers(const char* peers); .VS.
> jdwpTransportError StartListeningWithAllow(const char* address,
> char** actual_address, char *allow);
>
>
> I still do not like the StartListening() function clone and its
> name. It looks like a wrong direction to me.
>
> This is a fragment of my bug report comment on this issue:
>
> 4. The suggested *allow* feature is too destructive for the
> transport API. It makes the original function StartListening unusable
> and its entry slot a garbage. It will become a big mess if we add
> more function clones like StartListening11. . . . 6. The suggested
> API update makes the transport API VERSION_1_1 incompatible with the
> initial VERSION_1_0.
>
>
> One more alternate solution to suggest is to add new function:
> jdwpTransportError
> SetTransportConfiguration(jdwpTransportConfiguration config);
>
> Where: typedef struct { const char* allowed_peers; }
> jdwpTransportConfiguration;
>
>
> This approach allows to extend the jdwpTransportConfiguration in the
> future if necessary. However, I'm not sure we really need this
> ability.
>
>
> Both alternatives allow for the transport library to support both
> API versions. It is good by itself and also, it is a way to simplify
> the transport library.
>
> We could formulate the following requirements to the API updates: -
> the transport API update must support previous API versions - the
> updated API layout must be compatible with previous versions
>
> It seems to me, these requirements are achievable and two alternate
> approaches show it.
>
> Please, share your opinions?
>
>
> Thanks, Serguei
>
>
>
> On 5/12/17 02:10, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>> Thank you for the update with some review comments resolved! I
>> looked at it but will not provide my comments at this point. We
>> will need another update according to the recent design review and
>> items where we still have to reach an agreement.
>>
>> Thanks, Serguei
>>
>>
>> On 5/10/17 08:27, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>>> Serguei,
>>>
>>> Fixed minor issues (comments, netmask etc). Added an error for
>>> attempt to use allow with an old transport.
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.17/
>>>
>>> see also below.
>>>
>>>
I do not understand this reason for adding more complexity. It
seems, there should not be any issues in the future with
rejecting all unsupported versions by the transport library.
>>> Added a diagram explaining transport version negotiation to CR. I
>>> use future versions (1.3; 1.4; 1.5) because all this versioning
>>> staff has a long term goal and allow us to develop better
>>> transport without breaking existing one.
>>>
We are not adding extra parameter, we are introducing new
function that is a clone of another StartListening function
with a version suffix '11' in its name and with an extra
parameter.
>>> Correct. We changed behavior of StartListening function and 1.1
>>> transport shouldn't care about old one.
>>>
>>> i.e. when we document 1.1 interface we describe the only
>>> function StartListening(env, address, actualAddress, allow) that
>>> have to be placed to the StartListening11 slot.
>>>
>>>
>>> Back in 2015 I proposed to separate interfaces entirely (see
>>> webrev.04), but we (Alan?) decided that it's an overkill.
>>>
The original StartListening function is bei
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Hi of those:
One more alternate solution to suggest is to add new function:
jdwpTransportError SetTransportConfiguration(jdwpTransportConfiguration config);
Where:
typedef struct {
const char* allowed_peers;
} jdwpTransportConfiguration;
This approach allows to extend the jdwpTransportConfiguration in the future if
necessary.
+1
It would nice if a compiled client against JDK 8 headers works without
recompiling with a JDK 9 runtime.
To make really future proof; using a client compiled against JDK 9 with JDK 1X
you will need some way to know witch version of the struct was used.
E.g. SetTransportConfiguration(&config,
JDWP_TRANSPORT_CONFIGURATION_CURRENT_VERSION);
Thanks, Robbin!
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Hi Dmitry,
Let's get to a consensus for the last item on our plate:
jdwpTransportError AllowPeers(const
char* peers);
.VS.
jdwpTransportError
StartListeningWithAllow(const char* address,
char** actual_address, char *allow);
I still do not like the StartListening() function clone
and its name.
It looks like a wrong direction to me.
This is a fragment of my bug report comment on this issue:
4. The suggested *allow* feature is too destructive for the
transport API.
It makes the original function StartListening unusable and
its entry slot a garbage.
It will become a big mess if we add more function clones like
StartListening11.
. . .
6. The suggested API update makes the transport API VERSION_1_1
incompatible with the initial VERSION_1_0.
One more alternate solution to suggest is to add new function:
jdwpTransportError SetTransportConfiguration(jdwpTransportConfiguration
config);
Where:
typedef struct {
const char* allowed_peers;
} jdwpTransportConfiguration;
This approach allows to extend the jdwpTransportConfiguration in
the future if necessary.
However, I'm not sure we really need this ability.
Both alternatives allow for the transport library to support both
API versions.
It is good by itself and also, it is a way to simplify the
transport library.
We could formulate the following requirements to the API updates:
- the transport API update must support previous API versions
- the updated API layout must be compatible with previous
versions
It seems to me, these requirements are achievable and two
alternate approaches show it.
Please, share your opinions?
Thanks,
Serguei
On 5/12/17 02:10, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
Thank you for the update with some review comments resolved!
I looked at it but will not provide my comments at this point.
We will need another update according to the recent design review
and items where we still have to reach an agreement.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 5/10/17 08:27, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Serguei,
Fixed minor issues (comments, netmask etc).
Added an error for attempt to use allow with an old transport.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.17/
see also below.
I do not understand this reason for
adding more complexity.
It seems, there should not be any issues in the future with
rejecting
all unsupported versions by the transport library.
Added a diagram explaining transport version negotiation to CR.
I use
future versions (1.3; 1.4; 1.5) because all this versioning
staff has a
long term goal and allow us to develop better transport without
breaking
existing one.
We are not adding extra parameter, we
are introducing new function
that is a clone of another StartListening function with a
version
suffix '11' in its name and with an extra parameter.
Correct. We changed behavior of StartListening function and 1.1
transport shouldn't care about old one.
i.e. when we document 1.1 interface we describe the only
function
StartListening(env, address, actualAddress, allow)
that have to be placed to the StartListening11 slot.
Back in 2015 I proposed to separate interfaces entirely (see
webrev.04),
but we (Alan?) decided that it's an overkill.
The original StartListening function is
being removed.
It is much simpler to introduce new function AllowPeers(char*
peers)
with the same parameter.
This separate function have to be called explicitly before we
start
listening, It is extra communication step. IMHO, not obvious
one.
So I would prefer to keep StartListening11
-Dmitry
On 2017-05-10 12:37, se
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Hi Dmitry,
Thank you for the update with some review comments resolved!
I looked at it but will not provide my comments at this point.
We will need another update according to the recent design review
and items where we still have to reach an agreement.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 5/10/17 08:27, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Serguei,
Fixed minor issues (comments, netmask etc).
Added an error for attempt to use allow with an old transport.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.17/
see also below.
I do not understand this reason for adding more complexity.
It seems, there should not be any issues in the future with rejecting
all unsupported versions by the transport library.
Added a diagram explaining transport version negotiation to CR. I use
future versions (1.3; 1.4; 1.5) because all this versioning staff has a
long term goal and allow us to develop better transport without breaking
existing one.
We are not adding extra parameter, we are introducing new function
that is a clone of another StartListening function with a version
suffix '11' in its name and with an extra parameter.
Correct. We changed behavior of StartListening function and 1.1
transport shouldn't care about old one.
i.e. when we document 1.1 interface we describe the only function
StartListening(env, address, actualAddress, allow)
that have to be placed to the StartListening11 slot.
Back in 2015 I proposed to separate interfaces entirely (see webrev.04),
but we (Alan?) decided that it's an overkill.
The original StartListening function is being removed.
It is much simpler to introduce new function AllowPeers(char* peers)
with the same parameter.
This separate function have to be called explicitly before we start
listening, It is extra communication step. IMHO, not obvious one.
So I would prefer to keep StartListening11
-Dmitry
On 2017-05-10 12:37, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Dmitry,
Thank you a lot for the detailed reply!
On 5/10/17 01:10, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Serguei,
Please see my comments in-line.
On 2017-05-10 00:42, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
I'd like to resolve my questions before the upcoming design discussion
on Thu.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Edsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.15/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c.udiff.html
(0) The design description from the bug report tells:
> Than we change a negotiation protocol between JDWP and transport.
> We pass maximal supported version to transport initialization
routine and expect transport actual version to be returned.
The modified negotiation protocol adds extra complexity.
What is a motivation behind this?
Is it really necessary for the transport library to return an actual
version instead of rejecting the unmatched version?
I do not see it is really used in the webrev.15 implementation.
Transport have to return it's actual version in order to allow agent
to perform appropriate action.
see libjdwp/transport.c:526
This requirement adds extra complexity to the rules (transport
negotiation protocol).
It is not really necessary.
The loadTransport() already does a lookup of a version that is accepted
(not rejected) by the transport library and can save that version.
The transport_startTransport() then should use the version found by the
loadTransport().
Today it's just a selection of proper API call but in a future it might
be too-old-transport-error or deprecation warning or security warning or
something else.
I do not understand this reason for adding more complexity.
It seems, there should not be any issues in the future with rejecting
all unsupported versions by the transport library.
However, it will be even more simple if one transport library API could
support/accept all possible versions (see my alternate suggestion below).
(1) The following change in the jdwp transport library will reject
theJDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0 as it is below
the version JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1, but will except any version
above the JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1
(with providing/returning the actual transport version):
jdwpTransport_OnLoad(JavaVM *vm, jdwpTransportCallback* cbTablePtr,
- jint version, jdwpTransportEnv** result)
+ jint version, void** env)
{
- if (version != JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0) {
+ if (version < JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1) {
return JNI_EVERSION;
}
Te following change will also prevent supporting the 1_0 version of the
transport library:
- interface.StartListening = &socketTransport_startListening;
+ interface.StartListening = NULL;
libdt_socket/socketTransport.c is an implementation of 1.1 *transport*
it's not intended to run with 1.0 *backend*.
Why not?
It would simplifies things if the transport library (and its API) is
backward compatible.
i.e. 1.1 *backend* can run 1.1 and 1.0 transports but 1.1 *transport*
require 1.1 or greater backend.
This statement creates a confusion.
The truce is that the transport
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Hi,
I find both your approaches acceptable regarding the version and
StartListening11 vs AllowPeers.
Personally I prefer not using version instead using sizeof as syscall does.
E.g.
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/bind.2.html
But obviously this also require a new StartListeningXX method.
/Robbin
On 05/10/2017 05:27 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Serguei,
Fixed minor issues (comments, netmask etc).
Added an error for attempt to use allow with an old transport.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.17/
see also below.
I do not understand this reason for adding more complexity.
It seems, there should not be any issues in the future with rejecting
all unsupported versions by the transport library.
Added a diagram explaining transport version negotiation to CR. I use
future versions (1.3; 1.4; 1.5) because all this versioning staff has a
long term goal and allow us to develop better transport without breaking
existing one.
We are not adding extra parameter, we are introducing new function
that is a clone of another StartListening function with a version
suffix '11' in its name and with an extra parameter.
Correct. We changed behavior of StartListening function and 1.1
transport shouldn't care about old one.
i.e. when we document 1.1 interface we describe the only function
StartListening(env, address, actualAddress, allow)
that have to be placed to the StartListening11 slot.
Back in 2015 I proposed to separate interfaces entirely (see webrev.04),
but we (Alan?) decided that it's an overkill.
The original StartListening function is being removed.
It is much simpler to introduce new function AllowPeers(char* peers)
with the same parameter.
This separate function have to be called explicitly before we start
listening, It is extra communication step. IMHO, not obvious one.
So I would prefer to keep StartListening11
-Dmitry
On 2017-05-10 12:37, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Dmitry,
Thank you a lot for the detailed reply!
On 5/10/17 01:10, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Serguei,
Please see my comments in-line.
On 2017-05-10 00:42, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
I'd like to resolve my questions before the upcoming design discussion
on Thu.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Edsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.15/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c.udiff.html
(0) The design description from the bug report tells:
> Than we change a negotiation protocol between JDWP and transport.
> We pass maximal supported version to transport initialization
routine and expect transport actual version to be returned.
The modified negotiation protocol adds extra complexity.
What is a motivation behind this?
Is it really necessary for the transport library to return an actual
version instead of rejecting the unmatched version?
I do not see it is really used in the webrev.15 implementation.
Transport have to return it's actual version in order to allow agent
to perform appropriate action.
see libjdwp/transport.c:526
This requirement adds extra complexity to the rules (transport
negotiation protocol).
It is not really necessary.
The loadTransport() already does a lookup of a version that is accepted
(not rejected) by the transport library and can save that version.
The transport_startTransport() then should use the version found by the
loadTransport().
Today it's just a selection of proper API call but in a future it might
be too-old-transport-error or deprecation warning or security warning or
something else.
I do not understand this reason for adding more complexity.
It seems, there should not be any issues in the future with rejecting
all unsupported versions by the transport library.
However, it will be even more simple if one transport library API could
support/accept all possible versions (see my alternate suggestion below).
(1) The following change in the jdwp transport library will reject
theJDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0 as it is below
the version JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1, but will except any version
above the JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1
(with providing/returning the actual transport version):
jdwpTransport_OnLoad(JavaVM *vm, jdwpTransportCallback* cbTablePtr,
- jint version, jdwpTransportEnv** result)
+ jint version, void** env)
{
- if (version != JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0) {
+ if (version < JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1) {
return JNI_EVERSION;
}
Te following change will also prevent supporting the 1_0 version of the
transport library:
- interface.StartListening = &socketTransport_startListening;
+ interface.StartListening = NULL;
libdt_socket/socketTransport.c is an implementation of 1.1 *transport*
it's not intended to run with 1.0 *backend*.
Why not?
It would simplifies things if the transport library (and its API) is
backward compatible.
i.e. 1.1 *backend* can run 1.1 and 1.0 transports but 1.1 *transport*
require 1.1 or greater backend.
This statement creat
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Serguei,
Fixed minor issues (comments, netmask etc).
Added an error for attempt to use allow with an old transport.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.17/
see also below.
> I do not understand this reason for adding more complexity.
> It seems, there should not be any issues in the future with rejecting
> all unsupported versions by the transport library.
Added a diagram explaining transport version negotiation to CR. I use
future versions (1.3; 1.4; 1.5) because all this versioning staff has a
long term goal and allow us to develop better transport without breaking
existing one.
> We are not adding extra parameter, we are introducing new function
> that is a clone of another StartListening function with a version
> suffix '11' in its name and with an extra parameter.
Correct. We changed behavior of StartListening function and 1.1
transport shouldn't care about old one.
i.e. when we document 1.1 interface we describe the only function
StartListening(env, address, actualAddress, allow)
that have to be placed to the StartListening11 slot.
Back in 2015 I proposed to separate interfaces entirely (see webrev.04),
but we (Alan?) decided that it's an overkill.
> The original StartListening function is being removed.
> It is much simpler to introduce new function AllowPeers(char* peers)
> with the same parameter.
This separate function have to be called explicitly before we start
listening, It is extra communication step. IMHO, not obvious one.
So I would prefer to keep StartListening11
-Dmitry
On 2017-05-10 12:37, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> Dmitry,
>
> Thank you a lot for the detailed reply!
>
>
> On 5/10/17 01:10, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>> Serguei,
>>
>> Please see my comments in-line.
>>
>>
>> On 2017-05-10 00:42, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to resolve my questions before the upcoming design discussion
>>> on Thu.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Edsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.15/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c.udiff.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (0) The design description from the bug report tells:
>>>
>>>> Than we change a negotiation protocol between JDWP and transport.
>>>> We pass maximal supported version to transport initialization
>>> routine and expect transport actual version to be returned.
>>>
>>>The modified negotiation protocol adds extra complexity.
>>>What is a motivation behind this?
>>>Is it really necessary for the transport library to return an actual
>>> version instead of rejecting the unmatched version?
>>>I do not see it is really used in the webrev.15 implementation.
>> Transport have to return it's actual version in order to allow agent
>> to perform appropriate action.
>>
>> see libjdwp/transport.c:526
>
> This requirement adds extra complexity to the rules (transport
> negotiation protocol).
> It is not really necessary.
> The loadTransport() already does a lookup of a version that is accepted
> (not rejected) by the transport library and can save that version.
> The transport_startTransport() then should use the version found by the
> loadTransport().
>
>
>> Today it's just a selection of proper API call but in a future it might
>> be too-old-transport-error or deprecation warning or security warning or
>> something else.
>
> I do not understand this reason for adding more complexity.
> It seems, there should not be any issues in the future with rejecting
> all unsupported versions by the transport library.
> However, it will be even more simple if one transport library API could
> support/accept all possible versions (see my alternate suggestion below).
>
>
>>> (1) The following change in the jdwp transport library will reject
>>> theJDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0 as it is below
>>> the version JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1, but will except any version
>>> above the JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1
>>> (with providing/returning the actual transport version):
>>>
>>> jdwpTransport_OnLoad(JavaVM *vm, jdwpTransportCallback* cbTablePtr,
>>> - jint version, jdwpTransportEnv** result)
>>> + jint version, void** env)
>>> {
>>> - if (version != JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0) {
>>> + if (version < JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1) {
>>> return JNI_EVERSION;
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> Te following change will also prevent supporting the 1_0 version of the
>>> transport library:
>>>
>>> - interface.StartListening = &socketTransport_startListening;
>>> + interface.StartListening = NULL;
>> libdt_socket/socketTransport.c is an implementation of 1.1 *transport*
>> it's not intended to run with 1.0 *backend*.
>
> Why not?
> It would simplifies things if the transport library (and its API) is
> backward compatible.
>
>> i.e. 1.1 *backend* can run 1.1 and 1.0 transports but 1.1 *transport*
>> require 1.1 or greater backend.
>
> This statement creates a confusion.
> The truce is that the transport library can support some number of
> versions.
>
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Dmitry,
Please, see one correction below.
On 5/10/17 02:37, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Dmitry,
Thank you a lot for the detailed reply!
On 5/10/17 01:10, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Serguei,
Please see my comments in-line.
On 2017-05-10 00:42, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
I'd like to resolve my questions before the upcoming design discussion
on Thu.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Edsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.15/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c.udiff.html
(0) The design description from the bug report tells:
> Than we change a negotiation protocol between JDWP and transport.
> We pass maximal supported version to transport initialization
routine and expect transport actual version to be returned.
The modified negotiation protocol adds extra complexity.
What is a motivation behind this?
Is it really necessary for the transport library to return an actual
version instead of rejecting the unmatched version?
I do not see it is really used in the webrev.15 implementation.
Transport have to return it's actual version in order to allow agent
to perform appropriate action.
see libjdwp/transport.c:526
This requirement adds extra complexity to the rules (transport
negotiation protocol).
It is not really necessary.
The loadTransport() already does a lookup of a version that is accepted
(not rejected) by the transport library and can save that version.
The transport_startTransport() then should use the version found by
the loadTransport().
Today it's just a selection of proper API call but in a future it might
be too-old-transport-error or deprecation warning or security warning or
something else.
I do not understand this reason for adding more complexity.
It seems, there should not be any issues in the future with rejecting
all unsupported versions by the transport library.
However, it will be even more simple if one transport library API could
support/accept all possible versions (see my alternate suggestion below).
(1) The following change in the jdwp transport library will reject
theJDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0 as it is below
the version JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1, but will except any version
above the JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1
(with providing/returning the actual transport version):
jdwpTransport_OnLoad(JavaVM *vm, jdwpTransportCallback* cbTablePtr,
- jint version, jdwpTransportEnv** result)
+ jint version, void** env)
{
- if (version != JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0) {
+ if (version < JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1) {
return JNI_EVERSION;
}
Te following change will also prevent supporting the 1_0 version of the
transport library:
- interface.StartListening = &socketTransport_startListening;
+ interface.StartListening = NULL;
libdt_socket/socketTransport.c is an implementation of 1.1 *transport*
it's not intended to run with 1.0 *backend*.
Why not?
It would simplifies things if the transport library (and its API) is
backward compatible.
i.e. 1.1 *backend* can run 1.1 and 1.0 transports but 1.1 *transport*
require 1.1 or greater backend.
This statement creates a confusion.
The truce is that the transport library can support some number of
versions.
The latest supported version can satisfy the agent if it supports it.
see: libjdwp/transport.c:206 for version logic on backend (agent) side
The logic at L206 does not require the transport library to return its
version.
It will work Ok if the library rejects unsupported versions.
I'd suggest the following alternate change to the transport API
allowing
to support
both old and new versions at the same time (it would simplify the
negotiation rules):
- Add new function:
jdwpTransportError AllowPeers(const char* peers);
- Keep the original StartListening function.
The function uses the allowed peers data if it was previously
cached
by the AllowPeers().
- It seems, the alternate approach does not require adding the
extra_data with version.
But if there is still a real need to get the transport API version
then it'd better
to introduce a function named GetTransportVersion() or
JDWP_TransportVersion().
This would allow to encapsulate any extra_data that is
necessary in
such a case.
From pure JDWP hardening point of view we can just add extra parameter
*allow* to existing StartListening(). Caller is responsible for stack
consistency so old transport continues to work.
We are not adding extra parameter, we are introducing new function
that is a clone of another StartListening function with a version
suffix '11' in its name and with an extra parameter.
The original StartListening function is being removed.
A correction: Not removed but nulled out.
Do I get it right?
Thanks,
Serguei
It is much simpler to introduce new function AllowPeers(char* peers)
with the same parameter.
The original StartListening function works as before.
The updated API can support both versions 1_0 and 1_1.
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Dmitry,
Thank you a lot for the detailed reply!
On 5/10/17 01:10, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Serguei,
Please see my comments in-line.
On 2017-05-10 00:42, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
I'd like to resolve my questions before the upcoming design discussion
on Thu.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Edsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.15/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c.udiff.html
(0) The design description from the bug report tells:
> Than we change a negotiation protocol between JDWP and transport.
> We pass maximal supported version to transport initialization
routine and expect transport actual version to be returned.
The modified negotiation protocol adds extra complexity.
What is a motivation behind this?
Is it really necessary for the transport library to return an actual
version instead of rejecting the unmatched version?
I do not see it is really used in the webrev.15 implementation.
Transport have to return it's actual version in order to allow agent
to perform appropriate action.
see libjdwp/transport.c:526
This requirement adds extra complexity to the rules (transport
negotiation protocol).
It is not really necessary.
The loadTransport() already does a lookup of a version that is accepted
(not rejected) by the transport library and can save that version.
The transport_startTransport() then should use the version found by the
loadTransport().
Today it's just a selection of proper API call but in a future it might
be too-old-transport-error or deprecation warning or security warning or
something else.
I do not understand this reason for adding more complexity.
It seems, there should not be any issues in the future with rejecting
all unsupported versions by the transport library.
However, it will be even more simple if one transport library API could
support/accept all possible versions (see my alternate suggestion below).
(1) The following change in the jdwp transport library will reject
theJDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0 as it is below
the version JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1, but will except any version
above the JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1
(with providing/returning the actual transport version):
jdwpTransport_OnLoad(JavaVM *vm, jdwpTransportCallback* cbTablePtr,
- jint version, jdwpTransportEnv** result)
+ jint version, void** env)
{
- if (version != JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0) {
+ if (version < JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1) {
return JNI_EVERSION;
}
Te following change will also prevent supporting the 1_0 version of the
transport library:
- interface.StartListening = &socketTransport_startListening;
+ interface.StartListening = NULL;
libdt_socket/socketTransport.c is an implementation of 1.1 *transport*
it's not intended to run with 1.0 *backend*.
Why not?
It would simplifies things if the transport library (and its API) is
backward compatible.
i.e. 1.1 *backend* can run 1.1 and 1.0 transports but 1.1 *transport*
require 1.1 or greater backend.
This statement creates a confusion.
The truce is that the transport library can support some number of versions.
The latest supported version can satisfy the agent if it supports it.
see: libjdwp/transport.c:206 for version logic on backend (agent) side
The logic at L206 does not require the transport library to return its
version.
It will work Ok if the library rejects unsupported versions.
I'd suggest the following alternate change to the transport API allowing
to support
both old and new versions at the same time (it would simplify the
negotiation rules):
- Add new function:
jdwpTransportError AllowPeers(const char* peers);
- Keep the original StartListening function.
The function uses the allowed peers data if it was previously cached
by the AllowPeers().
- It seems, the alternate approach does not require adding the
extra_data with version.
But if there is still a real need to get the transport API version
then it'd better
to introduce a function named GetTransportVersion() or
JDWP_TransportVersion().
This would allow to encapsulate any extra_data that is necessary in
such a case.
From pure JDWP hardening point of view we can just add extra parameter
*allow* to existing StartListening(). Caller is responsible for stack
consistency so old transport continues to work.
We are not adding extra parameter, we are introducing new function
that is a clone of another StartListening function with a version
suffix '11' in its name and with an extra parameter.
The original StartListening function is being removed.
It is much simpler to introduce new function AllowPeers(char* peers)
with the same parameter.
The original StartListening function works as before.
The updated API can support both versions 1_0 and 1_1.
But my goal was to create a versioning in JDWP agent -> transport
relations that was missed in initial JDWP design. Further, more
complicated, changes (IPv6 support, UDS sockets support etc)
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Serguei,
Please see my comments in-line.
On 2017-05-10 00:42, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
>
> I'd like to resolve my questions before the upcoming design discussion
> on Thu.
>
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Edsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.15/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c.udiff.html
>
>
>
> (0) The design description from the bug report tells:
>
> > Than we change a negotiation protocol between JDWP and transport.
> > We pass maximal supported version to transport initialization
> routine and expect transport actual version to be returned.
>
> The modified negotiation protocol adds extra complexity.
> What is a motivation behind this?
> Is it really necessary for the transport library to return an actual
> version instead of rejecting the unmatched version?
> I do not see it is really used in the webrev.15 implementation.
Transport have to return it's actual version in order to allow agent
to perform appropriate action.
see libjdwp/transport.c:526
Today it's just a selection of proper API call but in a future it might
be too-old-transport-error or deprecation warning or security warning or
something else.
> (1) The following change in the jdwp transport library will reject
> theJDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0 as it is below
> the version JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1, but will except any version
> above the JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1
> (with providing/returning the actual transport version):
>
> jdwpTransport_OnLoad(JavaVM *vm, jdwpTransportCallback* cbTablePtr,
> - jint version, jdwpTransportEnv** result)
> + jint version, void** env)
> {
> - if (version != JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0) {
> + if (version < JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1) {
> return JNI_EVERSION;
> }
>
>
> Te following change will also prevent supporting the 1_0 version of the
> transport library:
>
> - interface.StartListening = &socketTransport_startListening;
> + interface.StartListening = NULL;
libdt_socket/socketTransport.c is an implementation of 1.1 *transport*
it's not intended to run with 1.0 *backend*.
i.e. 1.1 *backend* can run 1.1 and 1.0 transports but 1.1 *transport*
require 1.1 or greater backend.
see: libjdwp/transport.c:206 for version logic on backend (agent) side
> I'd suggest the following alternate change to the transport API allowing
> to support
> both old and new versions at the same time (it would simplify the
> negotiation rules):
> - Add new function:
> jdwpTransportError AllowPeers(const char* peers);
>
> - Keep the original StartListening function.
> The function uses the allowed peers data if it was previously cached
> by the AllowPeers().
>
> - It seems, the alternate approach does not require adding the
> extra_data with version.
> But if there is still a real need to get the transport API version
> then it'd better
> to introduce a function named GetTransportVersion() or
> JDWP_TransportVersion().
> This would allow to encapsulate any extra_data that is necessary in
> such a case.
>From pure JDWP hardening point of view we can just add extra parameter
*allow* to existing StartListening(). Caller is responsible for stack
consistency so old transport continues to work.
But my goal was to create a versioning in JDWP agent -> transport
relations that was missed in initial JDWP design. Further, more
complicated, changes (IPv6 support, UDS sockets support etc) require
this logic.
We have a structure jdwpTransportNativeInterface with a fixed set of
functions (see jdwpTransport.h:153). To add any new function to this
structure we have to create a method to detect presence of this
function. So we can't use GetTransportVersion().
With as separate AllowPeer() function nobody remind an agent writer that
they should use it, but extra parameter makes api changes and
requirements clear visible (up to compiler warning).
Also I'm against of changing behavior of existing function.
> (2) The following error messages miss the actual IP address or mask that
> was found to be illegal:
>
> 383 RETURN_ERROR(JDWPTRANSPORT_ERROR_ILLEGAL_ARGUMENT, "invalid ip
> address for allow"); 392
> RETURN_ERROR(JDWPTRANSPORT_ERROR_ILLEGAL_ARGUMENT, "invalid netmask for
> allow");
Other parameter parsing functions (e.g. "invalid port number specified"
at 274) doesn't explain what parameter is bad.
I think typical allow would have one or two entry, so verbose error
message is not worth significant complication of parsing code.
I would prefer to leave it as is.
> (3) A suggestion on the following:
>
> 377 uint32_t mask = 0x; 400 mask = 0x; // reset mask
>
> I'd suggest a more explicit approach instead of the L400 for a better
> clarity:
>
> 386 if (*s == '/') {
> 387 // netmask specified
> 388 s = mask_s2u(s + 1, &mask);
> 389 if (*(s-1) == '/') {
> 390 // Input is not consumed, something bad happens
> 391 _peers_cnt = 0;
> 392 RETURN_ERROR(JDWPTRANSPORT_ERROR_ILLEGAL_ARGUMENT, "invalid net
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
(The formatting is broken in my reply.
I've changed my Zhunderbird 'Send Options' to avoid this in the future.
I tried to fix the formatting below.)
Hi Dmitry,
I'd like to resolve my questions before the upcoming design
discussion on Thu.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Edsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.15/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c.udiff.html
(0) The design description from the bug report tells:
> Than we change a negotiation protocol between JDWP and transport.
> We pass maximal supported version to transport initialization
> routine and expect transport actual version to be returned.
The modified negotiation protocol adds extra complexity.
What is a motivation behind this?
Is it really necessary for the transport library to return an actual
version instead of rejecting the unmatched version?
I do not see it is really used in the webrev.15 implementation.
(1) The following change in the jdwp transport library will reject
theJDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0 as it is below
the version JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1, but will except any version
above the JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1
(with providing/returning the actual transport version):
jdwpTransport_OnLoad(JavaVM *vm, jdwpTransportCallback* cbTablePtr,
- jint version, jdwpTransportEnv** result)
+ jint version, void** env)
{
- if (version != JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0) {
+ if (version < JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1) {
return JNI_EVERSION;
}
Te following change will also prevent supporting the 1_0 version of the
transport library:
- interface.StartListening = &socketTransport_startListening;
+ interface.StartListening = NULL;
I'd suggest the following alternate change to the transport API allowing
to support both old and new versions at the same time (it would simplify
the negotiation rules):
- Add new function:
jdwpTransportError AllowPeers(const char* peers);
- Keep the original StartListening function.
The function uses the allowed peers data if it was previously
cached by the AllowPeers().
- It seems, the alternate approach does not require adding the
extra_data with version.
But if there is still a real need to get the transport API version
then it'd better to introduce a function named GetTransportVersion()
or JDWP_TransportVersion().
This would allow to encapsulate any extra_data that is necessary
in such a case.
(2) The following error messages miss the actual IP address or mask that
was found to be illegal:
383 RETURN_ERROR(JDWPTRANSPORT_ERROR_ILLEGAL_ARGUMENT, "invalid ip address for
allow");
392 RETURN_ERROR(JDWPTRANSPORT_ERROR_ILLEGAL_ARGUMENT, "invalid netmask for
allow");
(3) A suggestion on the following:
377 uint32_t mask = 0x; 400 mask = 0x; // reset mask
I'd suggest a more explicit approach instead of the L400 for a better clarity:
386 if (*s == '/') {
387 // netmask specified
388 s = mask_s2u(s + 1, &mask);
389 if (*(s-1) == '/') {
390 // Input is not consumed, something bad happens
391 _peers_cnt = 0;
392 RETURN_ERROR(JDWPTRANSPORT_ERROR_ILLEGAL_ARGUMENT, "invalid netmask for
allow");
393 }
394 } else {
mask = 0x;
}
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Edsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.15/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libjdwp/transport.c.udiff.html
(4) Some confusion with the fragment and its comment:
+
+ /* Pass the latest supported version,
+ * expect actual transport version in t->extra_data->version
+ */
+ ver = (*onLoad)(jvm, &callback, JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1, &t);
+ if (ver == JNI_EVERSION) {
ver = (*onLoad)(jvm, &callback, JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0, &t);
+ // Special handling for versionless transports
+ info->transportVersion = JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0;
+ }
+ else {
+ info->transportVersion = (*t)->extra_data->version;
+ }
+
The term "latest supported version" is ambiguous in this context.
Do you mean, supported by the JDWP back-end or by the agent library?
Also, it is not clear in what circumstances the agent library would
support the version 1_0 only.
The JDWP back-end is always coupled with the socket transport library, isn't it?
Is it because the libdt_shmem library can be used on Windows or because a
different native library path can be used?
Could you explain a little bit?
As we see in (1) above the actual transport version can be different
from requested only if the requested version is above the latest
supported by the transport library.
Otherwise, the version is matched or the JNI_EVERSION is returned.
The subsequent call to the OnLoad function can succeed only if the library
supports just the version 1_0.
The returned 'ver' is not checked for an error after the second *OnLoad call.
(5) Memory allocation for the info->allow filed
is needed only for the transport version 1_1:
+ if (allow != NULL) {
+ info->allow = jvmtiAllocate((int)strlen(allow)+1);
+ if (info->allow == NULL
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Hi Dmitry,
I'd like to resolve my questions before the upcoming design discussion
on Thu.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Edsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.15/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libdt_socket/socketTransport.c.udiff.html
(0) The design description from the bug report tells:
> Than we change a negotiation protocol between JDWP and transport.
> We pass maximal supported version to transport initialization
routine and expect transport actual version to be returned.
The modified negotiation protocol adds extra complexity.
What is a motivation behind this?
Is it really necessary for the transport library to return an actual
version instead of rejecting the unmatched version?
I do not see it is really used in the webrev.15 implementation.
(1) The following change in the jdwp transport library will reject
theJDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0 as it is below
the version JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1, but will except any version
above the JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1
(with providing/returning the actual transport version):
jdwpTransport_OnLoad(JavaVM *vm, jdwpTransportCallback* cbTablePtr,
- jint version, jdwpTransportEnv** result)
+ jint version, void** env)
{
- if (version != JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0) {
+ if (version < JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1) {
return JNI_EVERSION;
}
Te following change will also prevent supporting the 1_0 version of the
transport library:
- interface.StartListening = &socketTransport_startListening;
+ interface.StartListening = NULL;
I'd suggest the following alternate change to the transport API allowing
to support
both old and new versions at the same time (it would simplify the
negotiation rules):
- Add new function:
jdwpTransportError AllowPeers(const char* peers);
- Keep the original StartListening function.
The function uses the allowed peers data if it was previously
cached by the AllowPeers().
- It seems, the alternate approach does not require adding the
extra_data with version.
But if there is still a real need to get the transport API version
then it'd better
to introduce a function named GetTransportVersion() or
JDWP_TransportVersion().
This would allow to encapsulate any extra_data that is necessary in
such a case.
(2) The following error messages miss the actual IP address or mask that
was found to be illegal:
383 RETURN_ERROR(JDWPTRANSPORT_ERROR_ILLEGAL_ARGUMENT, "invalid ip
address for allow"); 392
RETURN_ERROR(JDWPTRANSPORT_ERROR_ILLEGAL_ARGUMENT, "invalid netmask for
allow");
(3) A suggestion on the following:
377 uint32_t mask = 0x; 400 mask = 0x; // reset mask
I'd suggest a more explicit approach instead of the L400 for a better
clarity:
386 if (*s == '/') {
387 // netmask specified
388 s = mask_s2u(s + 1, &mask);
389 if (*(s-1) == '/') {
390 // Input is not consumed, something bad happens
391 _peers_cnt = 0;
392 RETURN_ERROR(JDWPTRANSPORT_ERROR_ILLEGAL_ARGUMENT, "invalid netmask
for allow");
393 }
394 } else { mask = 0x; }
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Edsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.15/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libjdwp/transport.c.udiff.html
(4) Some confusion with the fragment and its comment:
+
+ /* Pass the latest supported version,
+ * expect actual transport version in t->extra_data->version
+ */
+ ver = (*onLoad)(jvm, &callback, JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1, &t);
+ if (ver == JNI_EVERSION) {
ver = (*onLoad)(jvm, &callback, JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0, &t);
+ // Special handling for versionless transports
+ info->transportVersion = JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0;
+ }
+ else {
+ info->transportVersion = (*t)->extra_data->version;
+ }
+
The term "latest supported version" is ambiguous in this context. Do you
mean, supported by the JDWP back-end or by the agent library? Also, it
is not clear in what circumstances the agent library would support the
version 1_0 only. The JDWP back-end is always coupled with the socket
transport library, isn't it? Is it because the libdt_shmem library can
be used on Windows or because a different native library path can be
used? Could you explain a little bit? As we see in (1) above the actual
transport version can be different from requested only if the requested
version is above the latest supported by the transport library.
Otherwise, the version is matched or the JNI_EVERSION is returned. The
subsequent call to the OnLoad function can succeed only if the library
supports just the version 1_0. (5) Memory allocation for the info->allow
field is needed only for the transport version 1_1:
+ if (allow != NULL) {
+ info->allow = jvmtiAllocate((int)strlen(allow)+1);
+ if (info->allow == NULL) {
+ serror = JDWP_ERROR(OUT_OF_MEMORY);
+ goto handleError;
+ }
+ (void)strcpy(info->allow, allow);
+ }
(6) There is no handling for the condition when the *allow* parameter is
passed but the transport version is 1_0 (which does not support the
*allow* parameter):
+ /* Interface version
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Hi Dmitry, sorry for the delay. Yes thanks, everything seems to work. Code looks reasonable. /Robbin On 03/29/2017 05:10 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: Robbin, One follow-up issue is that if you start suspended and than connect with an unallowed client the JVM starts and executes the program. Fixed. see http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.15 -Dmitry On 2017-03-16 15:59, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi Dmitry, thanks for the update. One follow-up issue is that if you start suspended and than connect with an unallowed client the JVM starts and executes the program. Simple program prints "Hello". [rehn@rehn-ws vanilla-hs]$ java -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=y,address=*:,allow=1.2.3.0/32 -cp . H Listening for transport dt_socket at address: ERROR: Peer not allowed to connect Listening for transport dt_socket at address: Hello I think it would be good if the VM stayed suspended when an unallowed client connects. Thanks, Robbin On 03/13/2017 08:07 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: Robbin, Please, see: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.11 1: So connecting with an unallowed client terminates the VM. Fixed. 2: Starting with an bad allow filter terminates the VM when connecting a client. Moved allowed parameter (and parser call) to StartListening. -Dmitry On 2017-03-10 15:56, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi Dmitry, I took a look at this, I have two practical issues: 1: [rehn@rehn-ws dev]$ java -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,address=*:,allow=6.6.6.6 -cp runs ForEver Listening for transport dt_socket at address: ERROR: transport error 202: peer not allowed to connect: Success JDWP exit error JVMTI_ERROR_NONE(0): could not connect, timeout or fatal error [transport.c:358] So connecting with an unallowed client terminates the VM. 2: [rehn@rehn-ws dev]$ java -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,address=*:,allow=6.BAD.6.6 -cp runs ForEver Listening for transport dt_socket at address: ERROR: transport error 202: unable to parse list of allowed peers: Success JDWP exit error JVMTI_ERROR_NONE(0): could not connect, timeout or fatal error [transport.c:358] Starting with an bad allow filter terminates the VM when connecting a client. Connecting with an unallowed ip/port should not terminate the VM and we should verify allow filter directly at startup. Thanks /Robbin On 02/28/2017 10:41 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: Everybody, Please review: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.10/ These changes introduce new parameter[1] of the socket transport - allow. Users can explicitly specify a list of hosts that allowed to connect to jdwp server and it's the second part of JDWP hardening[2]. No restrictions are applied by default now but I'll file a separate CR to restrict list of allowed peers to localhost by default. Also these changes implement versioning for jdwp transport and therefor simplify feature development of jdwp. 1. Example command line: -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n, address=*,allow="127.0.0.0/8;192.168.0.0/24" Possible values for allow parameter: * - accept connections from everywhere. N.N.N.N - accept connections from this IP address only N.N.N.N/nn - accept connections from particular ip subnet 2. JDK-8052136 JDWP hardening -Dmitry
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Serguei,
(resending lost e-mail)
Please, see:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.15/
Nits fixed.
> It is not clear why do you
> need the static variable transportVersion and this dance with it.
We have to keep transport version in the global variable because
void *reserved1; (_extra_data in new code)
is not initialized by old transport and we can't rely on it's content
but have to keep transport version between subsequent connections.
I'd reorganized this part of code a bit for better readability.
-Dmitry
On 2017-03-17 12:20, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> Dmitry,
>
>
> Some quick comments on the webrev.12.
>
>
> The style of comments must be /* */, not //.
>
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.12/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libjdwp/transport.c.frames.html
>
>
> 205 // Pass MAXIMAL supported version, expect actual transport version in
>
>Would it better to replace 'MAXIMAL' with 'the latest' ?
>
>
> 516 // interface version 1.0 doesn't support versioning, so we have to
> 517 // a use global variable and set the version artifically.
> 518 // Use (*t)->extra_data->version directly when 1.0 is gone
>
> 516: interface => Interface
> 517: Typo: a use => use
> 518: Dot is missed at the end.
>
>
> 33 static unsigned transportVersion = JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0; ... 207
> ver = (*onLoad)(jvm, &callback, JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1, &t);
> 208 if (ver == JNI_EVERSION) {
> 209 ver = (*onLoad)(jvm, &callback,
> JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0, &t);
> 210 // Special handling for versionless transports
> 211 info->transportVersion = JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0;
> 212 }
> 213 else {
> 214 info->transportVersion = (*t)->extra_data->version;
> 215 } ...263 transportVersion = pTransportVersion; ... 459
> info->transportVersion = transportVersion; It is not clear why do you
> need the static variable transportVersion and this dance with it. It
> seems, the transport version is always enforced by the TransportOnLoad
> function anyway. At the line 459, you could just have:
> 459 info->transportVersion = JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0; Thanks, Serguei
>
> On 3/17/17 00:03, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
>> Hi Dmitry, On 3/15/17 00:56, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>>> Serguei,
I still see the C .vs. C++ related change in the jdwpTransport.h.
>>> done. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.12/
>> Good. Thank you for the update!
>>> see also inline. On 2017-03-15 00:40, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Dmitry, We already had a big review thread back in 2014 on this.
I think, it is again going in the wrong order. First, I think, it is
better to start from a CCC (or its equivalent, CSR). This will allow
to focus on and sort out the changes in interface/behavior first
before going into the implementation details.
>>> CCC was filed and approved. The only reason I withdraw it - the fix
>>> didn't go to jdk9 but CCC tool doesn't have jdk10. CSR process is
>>> also not yet implemented.
>> The CSR preview message from Joe is attached. My understanding is that
>> we can continue to use CCC. At some points the CCC process will be
>> moved to the CSR. The CCC is out of date now as it does not match the
>> webrev 12. Also, I do not like the addition of new function
>> StartListening11() next to StartListening(). Does it mean, that for
>> transport version 1.2 we might have more function clones with 12
>> suffix? Perhaps, we need something smarter here but I'm unsure yet
>> what it has to be.
Second, I'd suggest to separate a couple of other things. I still
see the C .vs. C++ related change in the jdwpTransport.h. It is
better to leave it along for now as it was suggested in early review
rounds. If you still want to fix it then it is better to file a
separate bug that should include the JNI as well (as it was
discussed with Alan before).
>>> Do you mean?39 #ifdef __cplusplus40 extern "C" {41 #endif
>>> I'll add it back to avoid any confusion.
>> Yes. I see you added it back in new version of webrev.
Also, I'm thinking if it is a good idea to separate the transport
versioning to an RFE. It would allow to focus on this aspect as
necessary. In this case, the 8061228 will depend on the versioning.
However, it is much more simple and can be resolved faster.
>>> It's hard to test versioning code without implementation of new,
>>> VERSION_1_1 transport. Network part of 8061228 is simple and clear
>>> separated from versioning, so I would prefer to keep it together in
>>> one CR/one push.
>> No pressure. I've got your point above. Thanks, Serguei
>>> Restriction turned off by default (I'll file separate CR to enable it
>>> later), so we have enough time to fix any issues that might come.
>>> -Dmitry
Thanks, Serguei On 2/28/17 01:41, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> Everybody, Please review:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Serguei,
1. New webrev with couple of issues addressed (see Robbin's e-mails):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.15
2. We have to keep transport version in global variable because old
transport doesn't initialize reserved1 field and we are loosing version
information after first disconnect. i.e. if I remove this "dancing"
debugger is not able to connect second time.
I'd reorganized code a bit for better readability.
3. ccc tool doesn't have JDK10 so we can't go forward.
-Dmitry
On 2017-03-17 12:20, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> Dmitry,
>
>
> Some quick comments on the webrev.12.
>
>
> The style of comments must be /* */, not //.
>
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.12/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libjdwp/transport.c.frames.html
>
>
> 205 // Pass MAXIMAL supported version, expect actual transport version in
>
>Would it better to replace 'MAXIMAL' with 'the latest' ?
>
>
> 516 // interface version 1.0 doesn't support versioning, so we have to
> 517 // a use global variable and set the version artifically.
> 518 // Use (*t)->extra_data->version directly when 1.0 is gone
>
> 516: interface => Interface
> 517: Typo: a use => use
> 518: Dot is missed at the end.
>
>
> 33 static unsigned transportVersion = JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0; ... 207
> ver = (*onLoad)(jvm, &callback, JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1, &t);
> 208 if (ver == JNI_EVERSION) {
> 209 ver = (*onLoad)(jvm, &callback,
> JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0, &t);
> 210 // Special handling for versionless transports
> 211 info->transportVersion = JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0;
> 212 }
> 213 else {
> 214 info->transportVersion = (*t)->extra_data->version;
> 215 } ...263 transportVersion = pTransportVersion; ... 459
> info->transportVersion = transportVersion; It is not clear why do you
> need the static variable transportVersion and this dance with it. It
> seems, the transport version is always enforced by the TransportOnLoad
> function anyway. At the line 459, you could just have:
> 459 info->transportVersion = JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0; Thanks, Serguei
>
> On 3/17/17 00:03, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
>> Hi Dmitry, On 3/15/17 00:56, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>>> Serguei,
I still see the C .vs. C++ related change in the jdwpTransport.h.
>>> done. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.12/
>> Good. Thank you for the update!
>>> see also inline. On 2017-03-15 00:40, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Dmitry, We already had a big review thread back in 2014 on this.
I think, it is again going in the wrong order. First, I think, it is
better to start from a CCC (or its equivalent, CSR). This will allow
to focus on and sort out the changes in interface/behavior first
before going into the implementation details.
>>> CCC was filed and approved. The only reason I withdraw it - the fix
>>> didn't go to jdk9 but CCC tool doesn't have jdk10. CSR process is
>>> also not yet implemented.
>> The CSR preview message from Joe is attached. My understanding is that
>> we can continue to use CCC. At some points the CCC process will be
>> moved to the CSR. The CCC is out of date now as it does not match the
>> webrev 12. Also, I do not like the addition of new function
>> StartListening11() next to StartListening(). Does it mean, that for
>> transport version 1.2 we might have more function clones with 12
>> suffix? Perhaps, we need something smarter here but I'm unsure yet
>> what it has to be.
Second, I'd suggest to separate a couple of other things. I still
see the C .vs. C++ related change in the jdwpTransport.h. It is
better to leave it along for now as it was suggested in early review
rounds. If you still want to fix it then it is better to file a
separate bug that should include the JNI as well (as it was
discussed with Alan before).
>>> Do you mean?39 #ifdef __cplusplus40 extern "C" {41 #endif
>>> I'll add it back to avoid any confusion.
>> Yes. I see you added it back in new version of webrev.
Also, I'm thinking if it is a good idea to separate the transport
versioning to an RFE. It would allow to focus on this aspect as
necessary. In this case, the 8061228 will depend on the versioning.
However, it is much more simple and can be resolved faster.
>>> It's hard to test versioning code without implementation of new,
>>> VERSION_1_1 transport. Network part of 8061228 is simple and clear
>>> separated from versioning, so I would prefer to keep it together in
>>> one CR/one push.
>> No pressure. I've got your point above. Thanks, Serguei
>>> Restriction turned off by default (I'll file separate CR to enable it
>>> later), so we have enough time to fix any issues that might come.
>>> -Dmitry
Thanks, Serguei On 2/28/17 01:41, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> Everybody, Please review:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.10/ These
>>>
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Robbin, > One follow-up issue is that if you start suspended > and than connect with > an unallowed client the JVM starts and executes the program. Fixed. see http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.15 -Dmitry On 2017-03-16 15:59, Robbin Ehn wrote: > Hi Dmitry, thanks for the update. > > One follow-up issue is that if you start suspended and than connect with > an unallowed client the JVM starts and executes the program. > Simple program prints "Hello". > > [rehn@rehn-ws vanilla-hs]$ java > -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=y,address=*:,allow=1.2.3.0/32 > -cp . H > Listening for transport dt_socket at address: > ERROR: Peer not allowed to connect > Listening for transport dt_socket at address: > Hello > > I think it would be good if the VM stayed suspended when an unallowed > client connects. > > Thanks, Robbin > > On 03/13/2017 08:07 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: >> Robbin, >> >> Please, see: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.11 >> >>> 1: >>> So connecting with an unallowed client terminates the VM. >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 2: >>> Starting with an bad allow filter terminates the VM when connecting a >>> client. >> >> Moved allowed parameter (and parser call) to StartListening. >> >> -Dmitry >> >> >> On 2017-03-10 15:56, Robbin Ehn wrote: >>> Hi Dmitry, >>> >>> I took a look at this, I have two practical issues: >>> >>> 1: >>> [rehn@rehn-ws dev]$ java >>> -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,address=*:,allow=6.6.6.6 >>> >>> -cp runs ForEver >>> Listening for transport dt_socket at address: >>> ERROR: transport error 202: peer not allowed to connect: Success >>> JDWP exit error JVMTI_ERROR_NONE(0): could not connect, timeout or fatal >>> error [transport.c:358] >>> >>> So connecting with an unallowed client terminates the VM. >>> >>> 2: >>> [rehn@rehn-ws dev]$ java >>> -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,address=*:,allow=6.BAD.6.6 >>> >>> -cp runs ForEver >>> Listening for transport dt_socket at address: >>> ERROR: transport error 202: unable to parse list of allowed peers: >>> Success >>> JDWP exit error JVMTI_ERROR_NONE(0): could not connect, timeout or fatal >>> error [transport.c:358] >>> >>> Starting with an bad allow filter terminates the VM when connecting a >>> client. >>> >>> >>> Connecting with an unallowed ip/port should not terminate the VM and we >>> should verify allow filter directly at startup. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> /Robbin >>> >>> On 02/28/2017 10:41 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: Everybody, Please review: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.10/ These changes introduce new parameter[1] of the socket transport - allow. Users can explicitly specify a list of hosts that allowed to connect to jdwp server and it's the second part of JDWP hardening[2]. No restrictions are applied by default now but I'll file a separate CR to restrict list of allowed peers to localhost by default. Also these changes implement versioning for jdwp transport and therefor simplify feature development of jdwp. 1. Example command line: -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n, address=*,allow="127.0.0.0/8;192.168.0.0/24" Possible values for allow parameter: * - accept connections from everywhere. N.N.N.N - accept connections from this IP address only N.N.N.N/nn - accept connections from particular ip subnet 2. JDK-8052136 JDWP hardening -Dmitry >> >> -- Dmitry Samersoff Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia * I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the sources.
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Dmitry,
Some quick comments on the webrev.12.
The style of comments must be /* */, not //.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.12/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libjdwp/transport.c.frames.html
205 // Pass MAXIMAL supported version, expect actual transport version in
Would it better to replace 'MAXIMAL' with 'the latest' ?
516 // interface version 1.0 doesn't support versioning, so we have to
517 // a use global variable and set the version artifically.
518 // Use (*t)->extra_data->version directly when 1.0 is gone
516: interface => Interface
517: Typo: a use => use
518: Dot is missed at the end.
33 static unsigned transportVersion = JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0; ... 207
ver = (*onLoad)(jvm, &callback, JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_1, &t);
208 if (ver == JNI_EVERSION) {
209 ver = (*onLoad)(jvm, &callback, JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0, &t);
210 // Special handling for versionless transports
211 info->transportVersion = JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0;
212 }
213 else {
214 info->transportVersion = (*t)->extra_data->version;
215 } ...263 transportVersion = pTransportVersion; ... 459
info->transportVersion = transportVersion; It is not clear why do you
need the static variable transportVersion and this dance with it. It
seems, the transport version is always enforced by the TransportOnLoad
function anyway. At the line 459, you could just have:
459 info->transportVersion = JDWPTRANSPORT_VERSION_1_0; Thanks, Serguei
On 3/17/17 00:03, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Dmitry, On 3/15/17 00:56, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Serguei,
I still see the C .vs. C++ related change in the jdwpTransport.h.
done. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.12/
Good. Thank you for the update!
see also inline. On 2017-03-15 00:40, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Dmitry, We already had a big review thread back in 2014 on this.
I think, it is again going in the wrong order. First, I think, it is
better to start from a CCC (or its equivalent, CSR). This will allow
to focus on and sort out the changes in interface/behavior first
before going into the implementation details.
CCC was filed and approved. The only reason I withdraw it - the fix
didn't go to jdk9 but CCC tool doesn't have jdk10. CSR process is
also not yet implemented.
The CSR preview message from Joe is attached. My understanding is that
we can continue to use CCC. At some points the CCC process will be
moved to the CSR. The CCC is out of date now as it does not match the
webrev 12. Also, I do not like the addition of new function
StartListening11() next to StartListening(). Does it mean, that for
transport version 1.2 we might have more function clones with 12
suffix? Perhaps, we need something smarter here but I'm unsure yet
what it has to be.
Second, I'd suggest to separate a couple of other things. I still
see the C .vs. C++ related change in the jdwpTransport.h. It is
better to leave it along for now as it was suggested in early review
rounds. If you still want to fix it then it is better to file a
separate bug that should include the JNI as well (as it was
discussed with Alan before).
Do you mean?39 #ifdef __cplusplus40 extern "C" {41 #endif
I'll add it back to avoid any confusion.
Yes. I see you added it back in new version of webrev.
Also, I'm thinking if it is a good idea to separate the transport
versioning to an RFE. It would allow to focus on this aspect as
necessary. In this case, the 8061228 will depend on the versioning.
However, it is much more simple and can be resolved faster.
It's hard to test versioning code without implementation of new,
VERSION_1_1 transport. Network part of 8061228 is simple and clear
separated from versioning, so I would prefer to keep it together in
one CR/one push.
No pressure. I've got your point above. Thanks, Serguei
Restriction turned off by default (I'll file separate CR to enable it
later), so we have enough time to fix any issues that might come.
-Dmitry
Thanks, Serguei On 2/28/17 01:41, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Everybody, Please review:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.10/ These
changes introduce new parameter[1] of the socket transport - allow.
Users can explicitly specify a list of hosts that allowed to
connect to jdwp server and it's the second part of JDWP
hardening[2]. No restrictions are applied by default now but I'll
file a separate CR to restrict list of allowed peers to localhost
by default. Also these changes implement versioning for jdwp
transport and therefor simplify feature development of jdwp. 1.
Example command line:
-agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,
address=*,allow="127.0.0.0/8;192.168.0.0/24" Possible values for
allow parameter: * - accept connections from
everywhere. N.N.N.N - accept connections from this IP
address only N.N.N.N/nn - accept connections from particular
ip subnet 2. JDK-8052136 JDW
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Hi Dmitry,
On 3/15/17 00:56, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Serguei,
I still see the C .vs. C++ related change in the jdwpTransport.h.
done.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.12/
Good.
Thank you for the update!
see also inline.
On 2017-03-15 00:40, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
We already had a big review thread back in 2014 on this.
I think, it is again going in the wrong order.
First, I think, it is better to start from a CCC (or its equivalent, CSR).
This will allow to focus on and sort out the changes in interface/behavior
first before going into the implementation details.
CCC was filed and approved. The only reason I withdraw it - the fix
didn't go to jdk9 but CCC tool doesn't have jdk10.
CSR process is also not yet implemented.
The CSR preview message from Joe is attached.
My understanding is that we can continue to use CCC.
At some points the CCC process will be moved to the CSR.
The CCC is out of date now as it does not match the webrev 12.
Also, I do not like the addition of new function StartListening11() next
to StartListening().
Does it mean, that for transport version 1.2 we might have more function
clones with 12 suffix?
Perhaps, we need something smarter here but I'm unsure yet what it has
to be.
Second, I'd suggest to separate a couple of other things.
I still see the C .vs. C++ related change in the jdwpTransport.h.
It is better to leave it along for now as it was suggested in early
review rounds.
If you still want to fix it then it is better to file a separate bug that
should include the JNI as well (as it was discussed with Alan before).
Do you mean?
39 #ifdef __cplusplus
40 extern "C" {
41 #endif
I'll add it back to avoid any confusion.
Yes. I see you added it back in new version of webrev.
Also, I'm thinking if it is a good idea to separate the transport
versioning to an RFE.
It would allow to focus on this aspect as necessary.
In this case, the 8061228 will depend on the versioning.
However, it is much more simple and can be resolved faster.
It's hard to test versioning code without implementation of
new, VERSION_1_1 transport.
Network part of 8061228 is simple and clear separated from versioning,
so I would prefer to keep it together in one CR/one push.
No pressure.
I've got your point above.
Thanks,
Serguei
Restriction turned off by default (I'll file separate CR to enable it
later), so we have enough time to fix any issues that might come.
-Dmitry
Thanks,
Serguei
On 2/28/17 01:41, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Everybody,
Please review:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.10/
These changes introduce new parameter[1] of the socket transport -
allow. Users can explicitly specify a list of hosts that allowed to
connect to jdwp server and it's the second part of JDWP hardening[2].
No restrictions are applied by default now but I'll file a separate CR
to restrict list of allowed peers to localhost by default.
Also these changes implement versioning for jdwp transport and therefor
simplify feature development of jdwp.
1. Example command line:
-agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,
address=*,allow="127.0.0.0/8;192.168.0.0/24"
Possible values for allow parameter:
* - accept connections from everywhere.
N.N.N.N - accept connections from this IP address only
N.N.N.N/nn - accept connections from particular ip subnet
2. JDK-8052136 JDWP hardening
-Dmitry
--- Begin Message ---
Hello,
The JDK organization has long been served by the ccc webapp at
http://ccc.us.oracle.com. With the migration of bugs to JBS and the
availability of a configurable JIRA system, other workflows can be
supported by JBS as well, as seen in JEPs. As a continuation of this
trend and to allow better integration across processes, the ccc process,
with some adaptations, will soon be moved to JBS. After being moved to
JBS, the process will also be externalized, usable and visible to JBS
users who are not Oracle employees subject to the usual restrictions for
confidential issues.
Initially ccc reviews for post-9 releases will be done in the new
system. To avoid changing JCK and JCP-documentation processes
mid-release, JDK 9 will continue to be run on the existing ccc system.
After JDK 9 GA, there will be a high-fidelity bulk import of the old
requests into the new system.
One of the adaptations of the ccc process is a new name "CSR" standing
for "Compatibility and Specification Review." This new name is more
evocative of the role the process plays and is easier to explain to new
users.
The new "CSR" issue type is available for early preview on the JBS
staging system:
https://bugs-stage.openjdk.java.net
To create a CSR for an issue, under the "More" menu select "Create CSR".
This is similar to how a backport can be created manually. [1]
Thanks to Tony Squire implementing the JBS support for CSR.
More information about t
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Hi Dmitry, thanks for the update. One follow-up issue is that if you start suspended and than connect with an unallowed client the JVM starts and executes the program. Simple program prints "Hello". [rehn@rehn-ws vanilla-hs]$ java -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=y,address=*:,allow=1.2.3.0/32 -cp . H Listening for transport dt_socket at address: ERROR: Peer not allowed to connect Listening for transport dt_socket at address: Hello I think it would be good if the VM stayed suspended when an unallowed client connects. Thanks, Robbin On 03/13/2017 08:07 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: Robbin, Please, see: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.11 1: So connecting with an unallowed client terminates the VM. Fixed. 2: Starting with an bad allow filter terminates the VM when connecting a client. Moved allowed parameter (and parser call) to StartListening. -Dmitry On 2017-03-10 15:56, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi Dmitry, I took a look at this, I have two practical issues: 1: [rehn@rehn-ws dev]$ java -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,address=*:,allow=6.6.6.6 -cp runs ForEver Listening for transport dt_socket at address: ERROR: transport error 202: peer not allowed to connect: Success JDWP exit error JVMTI_ERROR_NONE(0): could not connect, timeout or fatal error [transport.c:358] So connecting with an unallowed client terminates the VM. 2: [rehn@rehn-ws dev]$ java -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,address=*:,allow=6.BAD.6.6 -cp runs ForEver Listening for transport dt_socket at address: ERROR: transport error 202: unable to parse list of allowed peers: Success JDWP exit error JVMTI_ERROR_NONE(0): could not connect, timeout or fatal error [transport.c:358] Starting with an bad allow filter terminates the VM when connecting a client. Connecting with an unallowed ip/port should not terminate the VM and we should verify allow filter directly at startup. Thanks /Robbin On 02/28/2017 10:41 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: Everybody, Please review: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.10/ These changes introduce new parameter[1] of the socket transport - allow. Users can explicitly specify a list of hosts that allowed to connect to jdwp server and it's the second part of JDWP hardening[2]. No restrictions are applied by default now but I'll file a separate CR to restrict list of allowed peers to localhost by default. Also these changes implement versioning for jdwp transport and therefor simplify feature development of jdwp. 1. Example command line: -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n, address=*,allow="127.0.0.0/8;192.168.0.0/24" Possible values for allow parameter: * - accept connections from everywhere. N.N.N.N - accept connections from this IP address only N.N.N.N/nn - accept connections from particular ip subnet 2. JDK-8052136 JDWP hardening -Dmitry
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Serguei,
> I still see the C .vs. C++ related change in the jdwpTransport.h.
done.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.12/
see also inline.
On 2017-03-15 00:40, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> We already had a big review thread back in 2014 on this.
> I think, it is again going in the wrong order.
>
> First, I think, it is better to start from a CCC (or its equivalent, CSR).
> This will allow to focus on and sort out the changes in interface/behavior
> first before going into the implementation details.
CCC was filed and approved. The only reason I withdraw it - the fix
didn't go to jdk9 but CCC tool doesn't have jdk10.
CSR process is also not yet implemented.
> Second, I'd suggest to separate a couple of other things.
> I still see the C .vs. C++ related change in the jdwpTransport.h.
> It is better to leave it along for now as it was suggested in early
> review rounds.
> If you still want to fix it then it is better to file a separate bug that
> should include the JNI as well (as it was discussed with Alan before).
Do you mean?
39 #ifdef __cplusplus
40 extern "C" {
41 #endif
I'll add it back to avoid any confusion.
> Also, I'm thinking if it is a good idea to separate the transport
> versioning to an RFE.
> It would allow to focus on this aspect as necessary.
> In this case, the 8061228 will depend on the versioning.
> However, it is much more simple and can be resolved faster.
It's hard to test versioning code without implementation of
new, VERSION_1_1 transport.
Network part of 8061228 is simple and clear separated from versioning,
so I would prefer to keep it together in one CR/one push.
Restriction turned off by default (I'll file separate CR to enable it
later), so we have enough time to fix any issues that might come.
-Dmitry
>
>
> Thanks,
> Serguei
>
>
> On 2/28/17 01:41, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>> Everybody,
>>
>> Please review:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.10/
>>
>> These changes introduce new parameter[1] of the socket transport -
>> allow. Users can explicitly specify a list of hosts that allowed to
>> connect to jdwp server and it's the second part of JDWP hardening[2].
>>
>> No restrictions are applied by default now but I'll file a separate CR
>> to restrict list of allowed peers to localhost by default.
>>
>> Also these changes implement versioning for jdwp transport and therefor
>> simplify feature development of jdwp.
>>
>>
>> 1. Example command line:
>>
>> -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,
>> address=*,allow="127.0.0.0/8;192.168.0.0/24"
>>
>> Possible values for allow parameter:
>>* - accept connections from everywhere.
>>N.N.N.N - accept connections from this IP address only
>>N.N.N.N/nn - accept connections from particular ip subnet
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. JDK-8052136 JDWP hardening
>>
>> -Dmitry
>>
>
--
Dmitry Samersoff
Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia
* I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the sources.
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Hi Dmitry, We already had a big review thread back in 2014 on this. I think, it is again going in the wrong order. First, I think, it is better to start from a CCC (or its equivalent, CSR). This will allow to focus on and sort out the changes in interface/behavior first before going into the implementation details. Second, I'd suggest to separate a couple of other things. I still see the C .vs. C++ related change in the jdwpTransport.h. It is better to leave it along for now as it was suggested in early review rounds. If you still want to fix it then it is better to file a separate bug that should include the JNI as well (as it was discussed with Alan before). Also, I'm thinking if it is a good idea to separate the transport versioning to an RFE. It would allow to focus on this aspect as necessary. In this case, the 8061228 will depend on the versioning. However, it is much more simple and can be resolved faster. Thanks, Serguei On 2/28/17 01:41, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: Everybody, Please review: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.10/ These changes introduce new parameter[1] of the socket transport - allow. Users can explicitly specify a list of hosts that allowed to connect to jdwp server and it's the second part of JDWP hardening[2]. No restrictions are applied by default now but I'll file a separate CR to restrict list of allowed peers to localhost by default. Also these changes implement versioning for jdwp transport and therefor simplify feature development of jdwp. 1. Example command line: -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n, address=*,allow="127.0.0.0/8;192.168.0.0/24" Possible values for allow parameter: * - accept connections from everywhere. N.N.N.N - accept connections from this IP address only N.N.N.N/nn - accept connections from particular ip subnet 2. JDK-8052136 JDWP hardening -Dmitry
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Robbin, Please, see: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.11 > 1: > So connecting with an unallowed client terminates the VM. Fixed. > 2: > Starting with an bad allow filter terminates the VM when connecting a > client. Moved allowed parameter (and parser call) to StartListening. -Dmitry On 2017-03-10 15:56, Robbin Ehn wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > I took a look at this, I have two practical issues: > > 1: > [rehn@rehn-ws dev]$ java > -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,address=*:,allow=6.6.6.6 > -cp runs ForEver > Listening for transport dt_socket at address: > ERROR: transport error 202: peer not allowed to connect: Success > JDWP exit error JVMTI_ERROR_NONE(0): could not connect, timeout or fatal > error [transport.c:358] > > So connecting with an unallowed client terminates the VM. > > 2: > [rehn@rehn-ws dev]$ java > -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,address=*:,allow=6.BAD.6.6 > -cp runs ForEver > Listening for transport dt_socket at address: > ERROR: transport error 202: unable to parse list of allowed peers: Success > JDWP exit error JVMTI_ERROR_NONE(0): could not connect, timeout or fatal > error [transport.c:358] > > Starting with an bad allow filter terminates the VM when connecting a > client. > > > Connecting with an unallowed ip/port should not terminate the VM and we > should verify allow filter directly at startup. > > Thanks > > /Robbin > > On 02/28/2017 10:41 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: >> Everybody, >> >> Please review: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.10/ >> >> These changes introduce new parameter[1] of the socket transport - >> allow. Users can explicitly specify a list of hosts that allowed to >> connect to jdwp server and it's the second part of JDWP hardening[2]. >> >> No restrictions are applied by default now but I'll file a separate CR >> to restrict list of allowed peers to localhost by default. >> >> Also these changes implement versioning for jdwp transport and therefor >> simplify feature development of jdwp. >> >> >> 1. Example command line: >> >> -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n, >> address=*,allow="127.0.0.0/8;192.168.0.0/24" >> >> Possible values for allow parameter: >> * - accept connections from everywhere. >> N.N.N.N - accept connections from this IP address only >> N.N.N.N/nn - accept connections from particular ip subnet >> >> >> >> 2. JDK-8052136 JDWP hardening >> >> -Dmitry >> -- Dmitry Samersoff Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia * I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the sources.
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Robbin, Agree, I'll fix it. -Dmitry On 2017-03-10 15:56, Robbin Ehn wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > I took a look at this, I have two practical issues: > > 1: > [rehn@rehn-ws dev]$ java > -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,address=*:,allow=6.6.6.6 > -cp runs ForEver > Listening for transport dt_socket at address: > ERROR: transport error 202: peer not allowed to connect: Success > JDWP exit error JVMTI_ERROR_NONE(0): could not connect, timeout or fatal > error [transport.c:358] > > So connecting with an unallowed client terminates the VM. > > 2: > [rehn@rehn-ws dev]$ java > -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,address=*:,allow=6.BAD.6.6 > -cp runs ForEver > Listening for transport dt_socket at address: > ERROR: transport error 202: unable to parse list of allowed peers: Success > JDWP exit error JVMTI_ERROR_NONE(0): could not connect, timeout or fatal > error [transport.c:358] > > Starting with an bad allow filter terminates the VM when connecting a > client. > > > Connecting with an unallowed ip/port should not terminate the VM and we > should verify allow filter directly at startup. > > Thanks > > /Robbin > > On 02/28/2017 10:41 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: >> Everybody, >> >> Please review: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.10/ >> >> These changes introduce new parameter[1] of the socket transport - >> allow. Users can explicitly specify a list of hosts that allowed to >> connect to jdwp server and it's the second part of JDWP hardening[2]. >> >> No restrictions are applied by default now but I'll file a separate CR >> to restrict list of allowed peers to localhost by default. >> >> Also these changes implement versioning for jdwp transport and therefor >> simplify feature development of jdwp. >> >> >> 1. Example command line: >> >> -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n, >> address=*,allow="127.0.0.0/8;192.168.0.0/24" >> >> Possible values for allow parameter: >> * - accept connections from everywhere. >> N.N.N.N - accept connections from this IP address only >> N.N.N.N/nn - accept connections from particular ip subnet >> >> >> >> 2. JDK-8052136 JDWP hardening >> >> -Dmitry >> -- Dmitry Samersoff Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia * I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the sources.
Re: RFR(M): JDK-8061228 Allow JDWP socket connector to accept connections from certain ip addresses only
Hi Dmitry, I took a look at this, I have two practical issues: 1: [rehn@rehn-ws dev]$ java -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,address=*:,allow=6.6.6.6 -cp runs ForEver Listening for transport dt_socket at address: ERROR: transport error 202: peer not allowed to connect: Success JDWP exit error JVMTI_ERROR_NONE(0): could not connect, timeout or fatal error [transport.c:358] So connecting with an unallowed client terminates the VM. 2: [rehn@rehn-ws dev]$ java -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,address=*:,allow=6.BAD.6.6 -cp runs ForEver Listening for transport dt_socket at address: ERROR: transport error 202: unable to parse list of allowed peers: Success JDWP exit error JVMTI_ERROR_NONE(0): could not connect, timeout or fatal error [transport.c:358] Starting with an bad allow filter terminates the VM when connecting a client. Connecting with an unallowed ip/port should not terminate the VM and we should verify allow filter directly at startup. Thanks /Robbin On 02/28/2017 10:41 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: Everybody, Please review: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8061228/webrev.10/ These changes introduce new parameter[1] of the socket transport - allow. Users can explicitly specify a list of hosts that allowed to connect to jdwp server and it's the second part of JDWP hardening[2]. No restrictions are applied by default now but I'll file a separate CR to restrict list of allowed peers to localhost by default. Also these changes implement versioning for jdwp transport and therefor simplify feature development of jdwp. 1. Example command line: -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n, address=*,allow="127.0.0.0/8;192.168.0.0/24" Possible values for allow parameter: * - accept connections from everywhere. N.N.N.N - accept connections from this IP address only N.N.N.N/nn - accept connections from particular ip subnet 2. JDK-8052136 JDWP hardening -Dmitry
